4 ms·
a) Those weapons are not autonomous, they are remote controlled. Just fancy more accurate guided missiles. They are alternative for blind bombing. Like any weap
by amitport 6y ago
a) Those weapons are not autonomous, they are remote controlled. Just fancy more accurate guided missiles. They are alternative for blind bombing. Like any weapon, it depends what you do with them and what your enemy is doing.
b) This type of weapons exists in many military industries and is bought by many countries (any country that can afford them). Making this specifically "ethical" in connection to Israel is appallingly biased.
- cochne 6y ago“Euphemistically described as a ‘fire-and-forget’ weapon, the Israeli Aerospace Industries’ Harop autonomously attacks any target meeting previously identified criteria, but includes a ‘man-in-the-loop’ feature that allows a human to technically prevent an attack from taking place.” Are you saying it is not autonomous just because there is a person in loop? Seems pretty clear that it would be easy to remove that person, making it fully autonomous, unlike a remote controlled device.
- amitport 6y agoIt's less autonomous than anti-radar missiles, heat-seeking missiles, etc., ... Not to mention "dumb" munition like mortar shells. I any case, even if there was some 'autonomous' weapon (which is not the case here), what is the point of talking about autonomicity of weapons as though they are not being deployed and launched by humans.