11 ms·
Based on my quick reading, the article fails to establish that autonomous drones are actually a clearly defined category about which treaties could plausibly be
by jessriedel 6y ago
Based on my quick reading, the article fails to establish that autonomous drones are actually a clearly defined category about which treaties could plausibly be enforced. The WMD category is not just about indiscriminate destruction, it's also crucially about being able to cleanly distinguish WMDs from non-WMDs. Biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons are, with only a few exceptions, fairly precise categories. (Part of the criticism of bunker-buster nuclear bombs is that they risked blurring the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons.)
How often does a remote operator need to check in with a drone for it to no longer be "fully autonomous"? How many such drones could the operator be monitoring at once? How many drones constitute a swarm?
A sovereign power can plausibly regulate blurry categories by just picking arbitrary but clearly defined cut-offs, e.g., the difference between a moped and a motorcycle is defined as an engine with a certain number of cc's. But this is a lot harder when you need to get dozens of different countries to all agree on a rule. International law is more dependent than domestic law on appealing to clear moral boundaries, since there is no higher earthly power to appeal to.
- gaukes 6y agoAlso, what number of drones. At why point does a swarm become a WMD? To me, it’s more about intelligence than numbers. You could have a single rocket but if it’s smart enough to evade enemy defenses, that rocket could level a city.
- gowld 6y agoHow could a non-nuclear rocket do that?
- arethuza 6y agoYou'd need an awful lot of them - London had about 500 hits by German V2 rockets which didn't have any appreciable impact on the course of the war.
- gonzo41 6y agoOnly if that rocket had a nuclear bomb on it. You'd be surprised how not powerful individual bits of munitions are. Sure a 2000 pound bomb sounds scary. But they work really well against point targets. Cities are not point targets. https://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/air-strikes/close-up-view-of-2000lb-jdam-strike/3744533948001 https://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/air-s...
- eindiran 6y agoReading this [0] Wikipedia article, it sounds like "Weapon of Mass Destruction" is not a super well-defined term to begin with: "The most widely used definition of "weapons of mass destruction" is that of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons (NBC) although there is no treaty or customary international law that contains an authoritative definition. Instead, international law has been used with respect to the specific categories of weapons within WMD, and not to WMD as a whole." However, there is one definition given in the Wikipedia article that seems to be sufficiently precise: """ (1) Any explosive, incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, or rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces [113 g], missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce [7 g], or mine or device similar to the above. (2) Poison gas. (3) Any weapon involving a disease organism. (4) Any weapon that is designed to release radiation at a level dangerous to human life. """ I definitely agree with your overall point that defining AFADS as a WMD will require careful navigation of the blurriness surrounding the category. On the other hand, it seems like that second definition is already in the territory of choosing arbitrary cutoffs (ie 113 grams). An alternative perhaps is to focus on handling the "autonomous" part, rather than the "swarm" part, as the USMA article suggests. The definition here can be more precise/less arbitrary I think: a weapon that can at any time be overridden by an operator is not fully autonomous. However, if its regular operation includes a period where there is no operator in the position to override it (eg the drone(s) keep doing their thing while the operator is away from the controls), it would then count as fully autonomous. Having some authentication that the operator is at the controls at all times, available to override and legally responsible for the behavior of the drone(s) is the key to this approach I think. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction
- adinb 6y agoI think that you have to focus on whether you have a human in the loop and can the human reliably interrupt an automated kill chain before there is a release of ordinance (much less fuzing) If there's any point that a human cannot 'abort', then it needs to be classified as a WMD. Out of human control I view swarm UCAVs as an unrecallable remote shotgun for the same reason as the article author, it's "inherently indiscriminate".
- 6y ago
- ponker 6y agoNone of this matters because treaty compliance is just a function of who’s powerful enough to get away with what.
- Aeolun 6y agoThat’s only completely true if someone is strong enough to beat everyone else combined. I don’t think any country like that currently exists.
- ponker 6y agoThat assumes that your “posse” will jump in to help you. Not a great assumption to rely on.
- nordsieck 6y agoThe US is that strong, provided they don't have to fight in or near China or Russia. No one besides those three even has a seat at the table. China and Russia could probably defend their own territories, but projecting power is an entirely different can of worms.
- kibibu 6y agoThis is backed up by the US not giving a toss about international law
- 082349872349872 6y agoBut they would fight in or near China or Russia — I don't see any chinese or russian bases in Canada or Mexico.
- nordsieck 6y ago> But they would fight in or near China or Russia — I don't see any chinese or russian bases in Canada or Mexico. Sure. Because they know their limits. But in the context of the thread, the point is that the US can institute whatever "international law" it sees fit (as long as it as the strength of will to do so) outside of the spheres of influence of China and Russia.
- Aeolun 6y ago> How often does a remote operator need to check in with a drone for it to no longer be "fully autonomous"? If the drone requires an operator to press the fire button, it is not fully autonomous. If it does not, it is.
- username90 6y agoIt isn't that simple. If the president has a button linked to 100 000 drones in the air to fire at their respective targets at once, is that a WMD?
- SiempreViernes 6y agoSeems pretty irrelevant to me if it should count as a WMD or just a very big conventional attack because the latter is also very bad.
- jessriedel 6y agoHow long can the delay be between the fire button and they actual violent act? People shot un-recallable missiles and artillery that doesn't land for minutes but does sophisticated tracking and maneuvering in the meantime. Is that a drone?
- imtringued 6y agoStop with the stupid nitpicking. You should already know the reason why we have humans in our war machines is that they are the ones with the authority to designate targets and deploy the weapon against the designated target.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- adrianN 6y agoIt's not stupid nitpicking at all. If I designate Jon Doe as a target and have a swarm of drones do facial recognition the laws have to be clear enough to distinguish this from me putting a tracking device in Jon Doe's pocket and have a missile home in on that signal.