Military robots are autonomous robots or remote-controlled mobile robots designed for military applications, from transport to search & rescue and attack.
- On The Moral Responsibility Of Military Robots Thomas Download Torrent For Windows
- On The Moral Responsibility Of Military Robots Thomas Download Torrent Pdf
Some such systems are currently in use, and many are under development.
- 2Examples
- 3Effects and impact
- 8External links
The results may be used when designing future military robots, to control unwanted tendencies to assign responsibility to the robots. Independent of the responsibility issue, the moral quality of. For they pose important ethical problems concerning, for example, the moral stance of the entities existing in the cyber domain and the moral responsibilities for the actions performed by autonomous artificial agents, such as cyber viruses or robotic weapons, and increasingly hybrid agents, represented by human-machine systems. Ethical Robots in Warfare. On the Moral Responsibility of Military Robots. Is decisive for assignment of moral responsibility to robots. As technological development. Robots in War: Issues of Risk and Ethics Patrick LINa,l, George BEKEyb, and Keith ABNEY. Robot, autonomous, military, war, ethics, risk, responsibility, advantages, benefits, liabilities, han1'. Military robots that are then unleashed against us; lowering the threshold for entering.
History[edit]
Soviet TT-26 teletank, February 1940
British soldiers with captured German Goliath remote-controlled demolition vehicles (Battle of Normandy, 1944)
Broadly defined, military robots date back to World War II and the Cold War in the form of the German Goliath tracked mines and the Soviet teletanks. The MQB-1 Predator drone was when 'CIA officers began to see the first practical returns on their decade-old fantasy of using aerial robots to collect intelligence'.[1]
The use of robots in warfare, although traditionally a topic for science fiction, is being researched as a possible future means of fighting wars. Already several military robots have been developed by various armies. Some believe the future of modern warfare will be fought by automated weapons systems.[2] The U.S. military is investing heavily in research and development towards testing and deploying increasingly automated systems. The most prominent system currently in use is the unmanned aerial vehicle (IAI Pioneer & RQ-1 Predator) which can be armed with air-to-ground missiles and remotely operated from a command center in reconnaissance roles. DARPA has hosted competitions in 2004 & 2005 to involve private companies and universities to develop unmanned ground vehicles to navigate through rough terrain in the Mojave Desert for a final prize of 2 million.[3]
Artillery has seen promising research with an experimental weapons system named 'Dragon Fire II' which automates loading and ballistics calculations required for accurate predicted fire, providing a 12-second response time to fire support requests. However, military weapons are prevented from being fully autonomous; they require human input at certain intervention points to ensure that targets are not within restricted fire areas as defined by Geneva Conventions for the laws of war.
There have been some developments towards developing autonomous fighter jets and bombers.[4] The use of autonomous fighters and bombers to destroy enemy targets is especially promising because of the lack of training required for robotic pilots, autonomous planes are capable of performing maneuvers which could not otherwise be done with human pilots (due to high amount of G-force), plane designs do not require a life support system, and a loss of a plane does not mean a loss of a pilot. However, the largest drawback to robotics is their inability to accommodate for non-standard conditions. Advances in artificial intelligence in the near future may help to rectify this.
Examples[edit]
In current use[edit]
On The Moral Responsibility Of Military Robots Thomas Download Torrent For Windows
Foster-Miller TALON SWORDS units equipped with various weaponry
The Platforma-M variant of the Multifunctional Utility/Combat support/Patrol. Serially produced by the Russian Army.
- D9T Panda, Israel
- Elbit Hermes 450, Israel
- Guardium[6]
- IAIO Fotros, Iran
- Samsung SGR-A1[7]
- Shahed 129, Iran
- Shomer Gvouloth ('Border Keeper'), Israel
In development[edit]
The Armed Robotic Vehicle variant of the MULE. Image made by the U.S. Army.
- US Mechatronics has produced a working automated sentry gun and is currently developing it further for commercial and military use.
- MIDARS, a four-wheeled robot outfitted with several cameras, radar, and possibly a firearm, that automatically performs random or preprogrammed patrols around a military base or other government installation. It alerts a human overseer when it detects movement in unauthorized areas, or other programmed conditions. The operator can then instruct the robot to ignore the event, or take over remote control to deal with an intruder, or to get better camera views of an emergency. The robot would also regularly scan radio frequency identification tags (RFID) placed on stored inventory as it passed and report any missing items.
- Tactical Autonomous Combatant (TAC) units, described in Project Alpha study Unmanned Effects: Taking the Human out of the Loop.[8]
- Autonomous Rotorcraft Sniper System is an experimental robotic weapons system being developed by the U.S. Army since 2005.[9][10] It consists of a remotely operated sniper rifle attached to an unmanned autonomous helicopter.[11] It is intended for use in urban combat or for several other missions requiring snipers.[12] Flight tests are scheduled to begin in summer 2009.[9]
- The 'Mobile Autonomous Robot Software' research program was started in December 2003 by the Pentagon who purchased 15 Segways in an attempt to develop more advanced military robots.[13] The program was part of a $26 million Pentagon program to develop software for autonomous systems.[13]
- Dassault nEUROn (French UCAV)
- MULE (US UGV)
Effects and impact[edit]
Advantages[edit]
Autonomous robotics would save and preserve soldiers' lives by removing serving soldiers, who might otherwise be killed, from the battlefield. Lt. Gen. Richard Lynch of the United States Army Installation Management Command and assistant Army chief of staff for installation stated at a conference:[14]
As I think about what’s happening on the battlefield today .. I contend there are things we could do to improve the survivability of our service members. And you all know that’s true.
Major Kenneth Rose of the US Army's Training and Doctrine Command outlined some of the advantages of robotic technology in warfare:[15]
Machines don't get tired. They don't close their eyes. They don't hide under trees when it rains and they don't talk to their friends .. A human's attention to detail on guard duty drops dramatically in the first 30 minutes .. Machines know no fear.
Increasing attention is also paid to how to make the robots more autonomous, with a view of eventually allowing them to operate on their own for extended periods of time, possibly behind enemy lines. For such functions, systems like the Energetically Autonomous Tactical Robot are being tried, which is intended to gain its own energy by foraging for plant matter. The majority of military robots are tele-operated and not equipped with weapons; they are used for reconnaissance, surveillance, sniper detection, neutralizing explosive devices, etc. Current robots that are equipped with weapons are tele-operated so they are not capable of taking lives autonomously.[16] Advantages regarding the lack of emotion and passion in robotic combat is also taken into consideration as a beneficial factor in significantly reducing instances of unethical behavior in wartime. Autonomous machines are created not to be 'truly 'ethical' robots', yet ones that comply with the laws of war (LOW) and rules of engagement (ROE).[17] Hence the fatigue, stress, emotion, adrenaline, etc. that affect a human soldier's rash decisions are removed; there will be no effect on the battlefield caused by the decisions made by the individual.
Risks[edit]
Human rights groups and NGOs such as Human Rights Watch and the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots have started urging governments and the United Nations to issue policy to outlaw the development of so-called 'lethal autonomous weapons systems' (LAWS).[18] The United Kingdom opposed such campaigns, with the Foreign Office declaring that 'international humanitarian law already provides sufficient regulation for this area'.[19] What is mass storage controller driver.
In July 2015, over 1,000 experts in artificial intelligence signed a letter calling for a ban on autonomous weapons. The letter was presented in Buenos Aires at the 24th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-15) and was co-signed by Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, Steve Wozniak, Noam Chomsky, Skype co-founder Jaan Tallinn and Google DeepMind co-founder Demis Hassabis, among others.[20][21]
Psychology[edit]
American soldiers have been known to name the robots that serve alongside them. These names are often in honor of human friends, family, celebrities, pets, or are eponymic.[22] The 'gender' assigned to the robot may be related to the marital status of its operator.[22]
Some affixed fictitious medals to battle-hardened robots, and even held funerals for destroyed robots.[22] An interview of 23 explosive ordnance detection members shows that while they feel it is better to lose a robot than a human, they also felt anger and a sense of loss if they were destroyed.[22] A survey of 746 people in the military showed that 80% either 'liked' or 'loved' their military robots, with more affection being shown towards ground rather than aerial robots.[22] Surviving dangerous combat situations together increased the level of bonding between soldier and robot, and current and future advances in artificial intelligence may further intensify the bond with the military robots.[22]
In fictional media[edit]
Pictures[edit]
- UGV TALON Gen. IV (USA)
- UGV 'PIRANYA' (Ukraine)
See also[edit]
- Unmanned combat air vehicle
References[edit]
- ^Steve Coll, Ghost Wars (Penguin, 2005 edn), pp.529 and 658 note 6.
- ^Robots and Robotics at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center PacificArchived 1999-02-20 at the Wayback Machine
- ^'Welcome to Grandchallenge'. www.grandchallenge.org. Archived from the original on 2007-10-11.
- ^Talbot, David. 'The Ascent of the Robotic Attack Jet'. MIT Technology Review.
- ^''Платформа-М': Роботизированный комплекс широких возможностей'. arms-expo.ru. Archived from the original on 2016-03-04.
- ^Guardium Military robotArchived 2005-10-26 at the Wayback Machine
- ^Korean gun botsArchived 2011-01-15 at the Wayback Machine theregister.co.uk
- ^Schafer, Ron (July 29, 2003). 'Robotics to play major role in future warfighting'. United States Joint Forces Command. Archived from the original on August 13, 2003. Retrieved 2013-04-30.CS1 maint: Unfit url (link)
- ^ abPage, Lewis (21 April 2009). 'Flying-rifle robocopter: Hovering sniper backup for US troops'. The Register. Archived from the original on 24 April 2009. Retrieved 2009-04-21.
- ^'U.S. Army Tests Flying Robot Sniper'. Fox News. 2009-04-22. Archived from the original on 2009-04-26. Retrieved 2009-04-23.
- ^Hambling, David (May 2009). 'UAV Helicopter Brings Finesse to Airstrikes'. Popular Mechanics. Archived from the original on 2009-04-21. Retrieved 2009-04-21.
- ^Hambling, David (April 21, 2009). 'Army Tests Flying Robo-Sniper'. Wired, 'Danger Room' blog. Archived from the original on April 23, 2009. Retrieved 2009-04-21.
- ^ ab'Military wants to transform Segway scooters into robots'. seattlepi.com. 2003-12-02. Retrieved 2009-04-24.
- ^Cheryl Pellerin (American Forces Press Service) - DoD News:Article published Aug. 17, 2011Archived 2015-07-14 at the Wayback Machine published by the U.S. Department of Defense, WASHINGTON (DoD) [Retrieved 2015-07-28]
- ^'Robot soldiers'. BBC News. 2002-04-12. Archived from the original on 2011-01-25. Retrieved 2010-05-12.
- ^Hellström, Thomas (June 2013). 'On the moral responsibility of military robots'. Ethics and Information Technology. 15 (2): 99–107. CiteSeerX10.1.1.305.5964. doi:10.1007/s10676-012-9301-2.
- ^Lin, Bekey, Abney, Patrick, George, Keith (2009). 'Robots in War: Issues of Risk and Ethics'. Archived from the original on 2015-11-23.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
- ^Bowcott, Owen Bowcott. 'UN urged to ban 'killer robots' before they can be developed'. the Guardian. Archived from the original on 2015-07-28. Retrieved 2015-07-28.
- ^Bowcott, Owen. 'UK opposes international ban on developing 'killer robots''. the Guardian. Archived from the original on 2015-07-29. Retrieved 2015-07-28.
- ^Gibbs, Samuel. 'Musk, Wozniak and Hawking urge ban on warfare AI and autonomous weapons'. the Guardian. Archived from the original on 2015-07-27. Retrieved 2015-07-28.
- ^'Musk, Hawking Warn of Artificial Intelligence Weapons'. WSJ Blogs - Digits. 2015-07-27. Archived from the original on
|archive-url=
requires|archive-date=
(help). Retrieved 2015-07-28. - ^ abcdefNidhi Subbaraman. 'Soldiers <3 robots: Military bots get awards, nicknames .. funerals'. NBC News. Archived from the original on 2013-10-06.
External links[edit]
On The Moral Responsibility Of Military Robots Thomas Download Torrent Pdf
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Military robots. |
- EATR: Energetically Autonomous Tactical Robot - Phase II Project
Ethical and legal concerns[edit]
- Public Say It's Illegal to Target Americans Abroad as Some Question CIA Drone Attacks, according to Fairleigh Dickinson University PublicMind poll - February 7, 2013
- The future of warfare: Why we should all be very afraid (2014-07-21), Rory Tolan, Salon
- Archive on air wars, Geographical Imaginations
- Logical Limitations to Machine Ethics, with Consequences to Lethal Autonomous Weapons. Also discussed in: Does the Halting Problem Mean No Moral Robots?
- Robots in War: Issues of Risk and Ethics - 2009
Organizations[edit]
- irobot.com, builder of the PackBot and the R-Gator systems
- Boston Dynamics, builder of BigDog
News articles/press releases[edit]
- 'From bomb disposal to waste disposal' Robots help deal with hazards, emergencies and disasters (International Electrotechnical Commission, July 2011)
- 'War robots still in Iraq', DailyTech, April 17, 2008
- New Model Army Soldier Rolls Closer to Battle (SWORDS)
- Carnegie Mellon University's snooping robot going to Iraq
- Gerry J. Gilmore (January 24, 2006). 'Army's Veteran Bomb-Disposal Robot Now 'Packs Heat''. American Forces Press Service. Retrieved 2008-02-02.
- As Wars End, Robot Field Faces Reboot April 11, 2012
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_robot&oldid=896561616'
Long before undergoing any proper study of war, I remember believing I had the problem sorted. In primary school, I remember remarking to friends that we could spare the lives of so many soldiers and civilians if leaders could simply agree what was being contested and have a chess match to determine the victor. The loser, I proposed, would then concede and the conflict would be resolved with no need for bloodshed.
Reading Machiavelli later, I realised the obvious flaw in my solution: to put all your fortune into anything less than your entire army is often risky, dumb and irresponsible.
All the same, the idea of a kind of war with minimal casualties remains appealing – and has throughout history. From so-called champions fighting in single combat – for instance, Siamese King Naresuan and Burmese Prince Mingyi Swa in the 16th century – to international agreements like the Hague and Geneva conventions, which restrict warfare to particular forms, we’ve constantly tried to manage the potential harms of war. Today, the quest for “risk-free” warfare seems to have reached its zenith in the increasing presence of robots on the battlefield.
From the armed drones we read so much about – which allow targeted strikes to be administered by remote-controlled aeroplanes –to bomb disposal bots, the advantages of these techno troopers are pretty obvious. Not being human, these bots are expendable, albeit pricy. This means they can be deployed in contexts where it would be imprudent or irresponsible to send human combatants.
Mining, manufacturing and fruit picking: can automation save Mackay jobs?
Read more
This is exactly the argument the US president, Barack Obama, deployed in defence of his drone policy, including CIA drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, and estimates of civilian casualties varying from less than 100 to over 800. Obama said it was “not possible for America to simply deploy a team of special forces to capture every terrorist. Even when such an approach may be possible, there are places where it would pose profound risks to our troops and local civilians.”
As the capacities of military robots expand from semi-autonomous machines to potentially fully autonomous, Terminator-style combatants, we should expect to see these arguments used with even greater force. The future we anticipate for military robots is a fully capable war fighter able to be deployed in place of a human soldier. Not only will this spare a human being the risks of combat, it might help protect civilians as well.
With adrenaline pumping in the heat of combat, it might be hard for a soldier to make a split-second judgement on whether movement on his flank is an enemy trying to get a clear shot or a civilian seeking cover. A robot faces fewer obstacles to clear decision-making and might more regularly be able to make the right call, sparing not only civilian lives, but the moral trauma of having taken a life.
It’s here – in the avoidance of the moral problems associated with killing – that the great moral challenge of military robots arises. In essence, delegating the task of fighting war to robots means alleviating humans like us from the responsibility of making life-and-death decisions – including the potential psychological costs that responsibility entails. Yet, as with any area of technological development, we need to consider whether war and killing are activities that are appropriate to outsource to machines.
In his play, Les Justes, Albert Camus pre-empts this question in his depiction of a group of revolutionaries plotting the assassination of Russian Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich. The abiding point of the play is that moral justification for killing relies to some extent on one’s own willingness to die. Refusing to assume the risk of your own death is to miss the moral seriousness of killing; it means forfeiting any ethical defence for what you’ve done, in essence turning killing into murder.
Camus’ claims might go a bit too far. Firstly, many who are willing to die have no right to kill – terrorists, most obviously. Secondly, it’s hard to argue that someone trying to defend justice and do what’s right needs to be willing to die in order to do so: we wouldn’t think a police officer unwilling to give their life was unworthy of the role. However, in the ambiguity of modern warfare it can be unclear precisely where justice lies.
Because of this, having humans who recognise the moral seriousness of killing involved might be critically important. The conscientious reflection of those whose hands will actually do the killing serves as another safeguard against the potentially reckless administration of force by political leaders. Earlier in the US presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised to bring back waterboarding and other forms of torture. In response, the former CIA director Michael Hayden suggested rightly that troops would likely refuse to obey his commands.
With robots, is a life without work one we'd want to live?
Read more
If risk-free, automated war became a possibility, one of the crucial safeguards against war crimes – the conscience, honour and personal ethics of military personnel, and what philosopher and psychologist William James described as a “pure piece of perfection” – might be lost. Regardless of their complexity, mechanised combatants will never be able to feel the moral implications of killing and the ethical reflection it sparks.
While it is often less than this, in its purest form, war is one of the most raw expressions of our commitment to treat some subjects with moral seriousness. It reveals a truth which is easy to overlook in the innocuousness of the day to day: there are things for which a people are – and should be – willing to die.
Because war isn’t anything so banal as a chess game. It cannot be conducted in a vacuum and though we should aim to protect innocent people from the direct consequences of conflict by seeking alternatives to war, when it does inevitably occur, we cannot – and should not – be fully inoculated from the ethical consequences.
When we send our sons, daughters, fathers, sisters and friends off to war, each of us feels the moral significance of the act. We use it to hold leaders to account, question the necessity of the conflict and express gratitude for what our armed forces are defending. It’s true, we might feel the costs of war less if it were fought by machines – in many ways that would be a good thing. But “not feeling” has a cost of its own: not to be emotionally and intellectually compelled to understand and avoid the horror of war also seems horrific in its own way.