3 ms·

https://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/landmines/ https://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/landmines/ "The ensuing Mine Ban Convention has been joined by three

https://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/landmines/ https://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/landmines/ "The ensuing Mine Ban Convention has been joined by three-quarters of the world’s countries. Since its inception more than a decade ago, it has led to a virtual halt in global production of anti-personnel mines, and a drastic reduction in their deployment. More than 40 million stockpiled mines have been destroyed, and assistance has been provided to survivors and populations living in the affected areas." I think the ideas is nip this one in the bud before it gets there.

GauntletWizard 8y ago
Yes. Autonomous weapons systems don't make much sense on patrol for a long time, but as area-denial systems, they're already past viable and it's surprising they're not deployed. I think there is a big argument to be made for their ethicality over landmines: unlike landmines, they are easy to deactivate and can be made highly visible while remaining effective. I don't think this makes them ethical, but I do believe that we have to consider how that changes their potential uses. There's an argument that it's far safer if we have hard rules around certain areas - "Enter a 500m radius around this military base moving more than 5mph and you will be shot many times" - than if we have fuzzy ones around guards and schedules. Certainties are often better than including a fuzzy human in the loop, which is why electrical installers all put their own lock on the switch rather than assigning a coordinator.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >they're already past viable and it's surprising they're not deployed. Not deployed as far as the public knows. It wouldn't exactly be hard to add a "shoot everything that comes near us" flag to the software for any existing naval CIWS
philwelch 8y ago
Arms control treaties are always vaguely pointless in the sense that countries will either leave or violate them the moment they are no longer within their interest. The biggest example of this is probably the Washington and London naval treaties of the 1920's and 1930's. The only real exception so far seems to be nuclear arms control treaties, which (a) mostly entrench the existing nuclear powers in a position of military hegemony over the rest of the world and (b) don't really stop anyone from having the weapons. Landmine bans in particular are kind of ridiculous because of how easy it is to build and plant IED's.
bgee 8y ago
Interesting that you brought up this treaty because I believe none of China, Russia or US has signed it... [0]: http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/mine_ban http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/mine_ban

GauntletWizard 8y ago

Yes. Autonomous weapons systems don't make much sense on patrol for a long time, but as area-denial systems, they're already past viable and it's surprising they're not deployed. I think there is a big argument to be made for their ethicality over landmines: unlike landmines, they are easy to deactivate and can be made highly visible while remaining effective. I don't think this makes them ethical, but I do believe that we have to consider how that changes their potential uses. There's an argument that it's far safer if we have hard rules around certain areas - "Enter a 500m radius around this military base moving more than 5mph and you will be shot many times" - than if we have fuzzy ones around guards and schedules. Certainties are often better than including a fuzzy human in the loop, which is why electrical installers all put their own lock on the switch rather than assigning a coordinator.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>they're already past viable and it's surprising they're not deployed. Not deployed as far as the public knows. It wouldn't exactly be hard to add a "shoot everything that comes near us" flag to the software for any existing naval CIWS

philwelch 8y ago

Arms control treaties are always vaguely pointless in the sense that countries will either leave or violate them the moment they are no longer within their interest. The biggest example of this is probably the Washington and London naval treaties of the 1920's and 1930's. The only real exception so far seems to be nuclear arms control treaties, which (a) mostly entrench the existing nuclear powers in a position of military hegemony over the rest of the world and (b) don't really stop anyone from having the weapons. Landmine bans in particular are kind of ridiculous because of how easy it is to build and plant IED's.

bgee 8y ago

Interesting that you brought up this treaty because I believe none of China, Russia or US has signed it... [0]: http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/mine_ban http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/mine_ban