5 ms·
Reading 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 definitio
by eindiran 6y ago
Reading 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".
- jessriedel 6y ago> 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. Whelp, I guess artillery and grenades are fully autonomous.
- eindiran 6y agoI mean, if that's your interpretation I suppose you could argue that bullets are autonomous once fired. Am I correct in interpreting your sarcastic comment as meaning you think that pursuing some definition of "autonomous" is a nonstarter here?
- jessriedel 6y agoWell, I haven't been able to come up with a good definition and I don't think the criterion you've pointed to is very promising.
- baddox 6y agoI think it’s abundantly obvious to anyone looking at this with good faith that the autonomy refers to the targeting of the weapon and the decision to fire the weapon.
- solveit 6y agoIf you're arguing about whether some weapon is a WMD after the fact, good faith isn't really something we can count on. The whole point of precise definitions is eliminating subjectivity. Anyway, that definition includes cruise missiles, which can't be WMDs because they're in widespread use. This line of inquiry is dead in the water.
- SiempreViernes 6y agoFor the purposes of evaluating morality of actions, yes artillery shells with variable fusings are a primitive version of an autonomous weapon. It is much more useful to think about the reverse situation: how does viewing future autonomous weapons as a sort of artillery shell with high CEP (or whatever feature you imagine the future weapons has) clarify the morality of its use?
- 082349872349872 6y agoI thought we all learned from Iraq that "Weapon of Mass Destruction" is not a super well-defined term?
- tsimionescu 6y agoIraq wasnt a problem of definitions, it was a problem of blatant lying.
- dmurray 6y agoWhat's going on with the first one? A WMD is defined as a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon or...a large firecracker?
- evgen 6y agoThe first definition line comes from a definition of a weapon of mass destruction as related specifically to criminal terrorism charges in the US federal code. In this case they are basically setting the lower bound for what could be classified as a 'bomb'. Nothing more. The WMD definition you are probably thinking of (and the one which is more relevant to the original article) is the military definition outlined in various conventions and treaties.
- MagnumOpus 6y agoThat's a broadening of the term WMD in the US civilian and criminal legislation, basically defining any "destructive device" as WMD so that anyone setting off hand grenades or pipe bombs can be charged under their extremely severe terror legislation. The US military, like every other organisation outside the US, doesn't include conventional explosives under WMD.
- aerostable_slug 6y agoThat's incorrect. CBRNE (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, Explosive) is literally in units' names.[0] 0:https://www.army.mil/20thcbrne https://www.army.mil/20thcbrne