Should unmanned combat veichles be banned?

[RamQan]

I helps if you have read "Forever Peace" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forever_Peace).

The argument against unmanned combat vehicles raised by the book is primarily that it allows nations to perform atrocities without taking any risk and with little domestic policy to consider. Several wars have ended partially as a result of public opinion due to high causalities (Vietnam, Israel-Hezbollah 2006). Would those wars have ended as quickly if casualties where just a question of expensive machines?

Another argument against self-controlled unmanned vehicle (non-remote controlled) is that there's no one to punish when the wrong decision is made. And no, it's virtually impossible to make an AI that never makes a mistake and never kill someone innocent. Just look at DARPA challenge (self driving cars) and see how many mistakes they (the cars) make. Then imagine if a drone that is self-controlled (you tell what to kill and it makes the all the decisions on how to make the kill) kills a bunch of civilians. Who do you punish? You can't punish the designer, since no one would design such a vehicle when they are essentially bound to sooner or later make a mistake.

US military are planning on acquire such a self-controlled drone.

What do you think of unmanned armed vehicles?

[Silent Reader]

well i have "read" the audio-book :D

but the gadgets in the book were remote controlled and not fully autonomous.

[Connaught Ranger]

Its not like these devices "think" for themselves there is always an operator there to push a button, so ultimately, somebody is responsible.

[RamQan]

well i have "read" the audio-book :D

but the gadgets in the book were remote controlled and not fully autonomous.

I know, but I had in mind both should be discussed (autonomous & remote controlled). Especially now since USA are planning to acquire one autonomous.

[DesktopArmor]

I know, but I had in mind both should be discussed (autonomous & remote controlled). Especially now since USA are planning to acquire one autonomous.

The ones they are planning to buy have the ability to navigate and patrol autonomously, but no one is willing to give them the authority to pull the trigger. No matter what, someone will be responsible. To a certain extent, having any protection on the battlefield makes it easier to kill without the same level of risk. Anyways, the responsible entity is always the entity who ordered the strike, regardless if a machine executed it.

[2495]

I know, but I had in mind both should be discussed (autonomous & remote controlled). Especially now since USA are planning to acquire one autonomous.


Having a laugh aren't you? whats wrong with drones in warfare? they fly, they fight, a man presses a button, enemy dies. Whats wrong with that?

Absolutely 100% nothing is wrong at all.

[RamQan]

The ones they are planning to buy have the ability to navigate and patrol autonomously, but no one is willing to give them the authority to pull the trigger. No matter what, someone will be responsible. To a certain extent, having any protection on the battlefield makes it easier to kill without the same level of risk. Anyways, the responsible entity is always the entity who ordered the strike, regardless if a machine executed it.

Ok, then that's settled. What about the other concern? That a war can go on indefinitely with very little consequences to the technologically advanced country. Imagine if Vietnam had no American loss of live, the war could still be going on today (maybe a stretch, but you understand where I am going).

[2495]

Ok, then that's settled. What about the other concern? That a war can go on indefinitely with very little consequences to the technologically advanced country. Imagine if Vietnam had no American loss of live, the war could still be going on today (maybe a stretch, but you understand where I am going).

Why would it go on for a long period of time? if you bomb the living snot out of theenemy they are going to give up after a period of time with no enemy to fight back against.

You got an unseen and unreachable enemy, morale will be bust into the gutter.

[Al-Bundy]

My fear is that unmanned combat vehicles/aircrafts in the future are going to be used by various regime against their people,minorities, neighbors, rivals. I can only imagine a country like Sudan, Myanmar etc with that technology. Basically some are going to abuse this technology.

[Chulo]

I helps if you have read "Forever Peace" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forever_Peace).

The argument against unmanned combat vehicles raised by the book is primarily that it allows nations to perform atrocities without taking any risk and with little domestic policy to consider. Several wars have ended partially as a result of public opinion due to high causalities (Vietnam, Israel-Hezbollah 2006). Would those wars have ended as quickly if casualties where just a question of expensive machines?

Another argument against self-controlled unmanned vehicle (non-remote controlled) is that there's no one to punish when the wrong decision is made. And no, it's virtually impossible to make an AI that never makes a mistake and never kill someone innocent. Just look at DARPA challenge (self driving cars) and see how many mistakes they (the cars) make. Then imagine if a drone that is self-controlled (you tell what to kill and it makes the all the decisions on how to make the kill) kills a bunch of civilians. Who do you punish? You can't punish the designer, since no one would design such a vehicle when they are essentially bound to sooner or later make a mistake.

US military are planning on acquire such a self-controlled drone.

What do you think of unmanned armed vehicles?

I think its a flawed argument.
Just because a piece of equipment is "unmanned" or controlled by an AI (which is not an issue right now) does not mean the owner of the equipment is not legally responsible for its actions.
Take for example dogs, they are individuals with a great deal of freedom, but the owner is the final person who is responsible. Should that dog do anything harmful or illegal, the owner faces the legal consequence.
In war, governments deal with more than just casualties, the geo-political sphere is influenced by many different factors, and casualties would only be a small factor. So no matter what the actions or who or what takes them, they act as an agent for a country, the county still faces the same issues as it has always when it comes to being responsible for the actions of its soldiers.

[RamQan]

Why would it go on for a long period of time? if you bomb the living snot out of theenemy they are going to give up after a period of time with no enemy to fight back against.

You got an unseen and unreachable enemy, morale will be bust into the gutter.

Even machines aren't unseen and unreachable. And not killing the enemy doesn't mean you are loosing. If a Taliban with an AK rifle shoot a few round in the general direction of some American soldiers and miss only to get bombed from the air, who has really lost?

The Taliban doesn't value their life, the rifle & ammo is cheap.
The Americans have to pay for air-craft fuel, expensive bombs and crew to run it all.

I would say even if no Americans are killed and a Taliban is, it is still the Talibans win. The Talibans have even said this is part of their strategy, to wear out USA by making them pay insane amounts of money for war.

So, even with UAV's you aren't guaranteed a win.

[Hispeed1]

Hell no. 12345

[2495]

Hell no. 12345

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/8329/gonnakickyoarse.jpg


http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/9039/gonna.jpg

Hell no! they gonna come for you wether you protest like a whiney bitch or not!

[Bitogno]

I think we should instead push for more unmaned combat vehicles because when everyone will have them, only unmaned combat vehicles will perish.

[BloodyTalon]

Ok, then that's settled. What about the other concern? That a war can go on indefinitely with very little consequences to the technologically advanced country. Imagine if Vietnam had no American loss of live, the war could still be going on today (maybe a stretch, but you understand where I am going).
maybe a stretch? Unmanned vehicles are never going to completely replace old fashioned boots on the ground for a variety of reasons (camera doesn't provide as good SA as being there, can't really use a robot to work with locals, etc etc.), so the idea that drones are gonna make wars go on indefinitely is patently ridiculous.

[MichaelF]

Stupid thread is stupid.

There is no virtue in allowing the enemy a shot at your troops.

The purpose of waging War is to crush the enemy until he capitulates or is destroyed.

[BloodyTalon]

There is no virtue in allowing the enemy a shot at your troops.
2x

At the end of the day, people who argue that unmanned drones are some sort of inherent evil are basically taking shaky, vague questions of ethics that would never present themselves in a battlefield over solid evidence that the technology has been proven to greatly enhance our force projection and awareness and ultimately saves more lives.

[2495]

Stupid thread is stupid.

There is no virtue in allowing the enemy a shot at your troops.


There endeth the thread. Stupid thread is stupid FTW.

[Connaught Ranger]

The ones they are planning to buy have the ability to navigate and patrol autonomously, but no one is willing to give them the authority to pull the trigger. No matter what, someone will be responsible. To a certain extent, having any protection on the battlefield makes it easier to kill without the same level of risk. Anyways, the responsible entity is always the entity who ordered the strike, regardless if a machine executed it.

In all reality, does the technology exist for a system to be able to think for itself and determine who is the enemy and who is not? We have not yet arrived at the stage of "Terminator" style weapons systems, and they are a long way away if ever.

Connaught Ranger.

[2495]

In all reality, does the technology exist for a system to be able to think for itself and determine who is the enemy and who is not? We have not yet arrived at the stage of "Terminator" style weapons systems, and they are a long way away if ever.

Connaught Ranger.

The technology is there, but the Pentagon will not allow it within the next 30 years until the current generation of SAP Colonels have retired. Then? then the Reaper pilots will be wearing 3 / 4 stars, and unmanned war will be a go.

[Connaught Ranger]

The technology is there, but the Pentagon will not allow it within the next 30 years until the current generation of SAP Colonels have retired. Then? then the Reaper pilots will be wearing 3 / 4 stars, and unmanned war will be a go.

There is no man-made machine with the ability to make an instant decision, only to follow a pre-programed cause of action influenced by a human stroking a button somewhere. If the technology exsists in the USA Chi-bot copies would be available online as we type. rofl

[2495]

There is no man-made machine with the ability to make an instant decision, only to follow a pre-programed cause of action influenced by a human stroking a button somewhere. If the technology exsists in the USA Chi-bot copies would be available online as we type. rofl

Sorry Connaught, I have already proven this to be wrong here on MP.net.

There is, right now, the capability to make a UCAV respond to threats as it sees fit. They can also give tasking to other UCAVs to destroy that threat if they have not the capability to do so (running low on stores etc.)

From launch to land, right now, at Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop, the capability for fully independant UAVS exist. however, the Pentagon insist on a man in the loop making the final decision.

Wait till Reaper Captains are generals and there will be no such qualms. Fighter UCAVS are next :)

[RamQan]

First off, I was not making a case for some bizarre "honourable" warfare. I understand that any advantage that can be had must be taken. I was merely asking about the long term hazards of relying on unmanned vehicles and what you all think of it.

And yes, I do know unmanned vehicles will never fully replace people.

[TheSteve]

Banning unmanned combat vehicles? Its like banning the tank at the beginning of World War II. Sure, there are a lot of moral questions that need to be more openly discussed, but robotics in warfare is the future.

[Connaught Ranger]

Sorry Connaught, I have already proven this to be wrong here on MP.net.

There is, right now, the capability to make a UCAV respond to threats as it sees fit. They can also give tasking to other UCAVs to destroy that threat if they have not the capability to do so (running low on stores etc.)

From launch to land, right now, at Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop, the capability for fully independant UAVS exist. however, the Pentagon insist on a man in the loop making the final decision.

Wait till Reaper Captains are generals and there will be no such qualms. Fighter UCAVS are next :)

No matter what you insist is, and whether it's in a lab or in a controlled experiment, I wont believe there is an independent free thinking artificial intelligence until it comes knocking on my door, until then its all in the realms of sci-fi.

Connaught Ranger.

[Atlantic Friend]

We've had Natural Stupidity-driven systems for millenia, it's time for Artificial Intelligence to have a go at it.

And in strictly legal terms, the use of UAVs doesn't lessen a nation's responsibility anymore than long-range artillery did.

[2495]

I wont believe there is an independent free thinking artificial intelligence until it comes knocking on my door, until then its all in the realms of sci-fi.

Connaught Ranger.

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/4643/terminator307.jpg

Run Connaught run!rofl

[Xaito]

No matter what you insist is, and whether it's in a lab or in a controlled experiment, I wont believe there is an independent free thinking artificial intelligence until it comes knocking on my door, until then its all in the realms of sci-fi.

Connaught Ranger.

indeed - what people these days think of when they talk about artificial intelligence are preprogrammed algorithms and behavior patterns - those should - theoretically - be enough to allow autonomous operation to some extent but I haven't heard of one project that would be advanced enough to let a vehicle operate on it's own apart from some constructors/programmers competitions where they make cars follow a road and steer around obstacles etc - nowhere near a stage where it could be useful.

[sheytanelkebir]

there are a LOT of jobs for "ontology" and AI systems going in the US. Shame that you need "security clearance" for them.

This is an area of technology where I can envisage the chinese to be able to field effective units on the ground, purely because they don't have such an inferior technology in AI (which is, at its base, simply some C class runtimes, with an ontology and KB built on top). the level of "intelligence" that the BOT has depends on many factors, the main ones being:
1-the spectrum and field of the "sensors" that give the BOT its "senses"
2-the machine learning algorithm that allows the BOT to learn on the move
3-the quality of the pre-programmed AI/KBS.

The US has the advantage in 1, but in 2 and 3 the Chinese (or Indians/Japanese) can EASILY match the US through the sheer number of AI/KBS programmers they can hire to build up a "full spectrum" pre-programmed KBS and an extremely large ANN/Learning System that allows the Bot to absorb new knowledge.

The problem then is the speed at which the Bot can actually "process" that knowledge. Current CISC/RISC based microprocessors are wholly inadequate for real-time processing of the (possibly 1Billion+ frames) of a full "AI/KBS". hell huge server stacks are needed for just a few million frame systems like wordnet/gene-ontology etc... so this remains the true bottleneck.

if the US comes up with an "organic hybrid" microprocessor, and really IBM is one of only 2-3 companies on earth capable of such a feat, then the US will leapfrog the rest of the world and create a new "gap" between it and the world (just like the stealth gap from the 80s till now).

[sheytanelkebir]

indeed - what people these days think of when they talk about artificial intelligence are preprogrammed algorithms and behavior patterns - those should - theoretically - be enough to allow autonomous operation to some extent but I haven't heard of one project that would be advanced enough to let a vehicle operate on it's own apart from some constructors/programmers competitions where they make cars follow a road and steer around obstacles etc - nowhere near a stage where it could be useful.

that may be true at an amateur level. but TERCOM is 30 years old... and the new stuff puts it in the rubbish dump of history.

[Ordie]

This thread got me thinking about how distant warfare can be.

In medeval times, warfare was limited to Summer months as people were needed for the planting and harvest seasons. And it was sword against sword.

In the 17th century, you needed to be within musket range to win battles. You still had to worry about the harvest.

The 19th century rifles further increased the gap.

WW1 the machine guns widened the gap further

WW2 aircraft further widened the gap further.

Today, you have drones in Afghanistan shooting missiles flown by 'pilots' in Nevada who get to go home everynight and have a beer.

Somehow I get this sinking feeling that something aint right.

[sheytanelkebir]

the UCAV and UCVs are already a reality, its just that they're still in their infancy. Today's professional militaries can no longer afford to incur huge casualties or the huge expense associated with "human" troops on the ground. Just think about it for a minute. The analogy is like comparing unmanned space probes with manned space missions and the cost difference between the two. Humans are a liability on the battlefield!

as for "visibility" and senses, it may be expensive today, but multi-spectral sensors can give a UCV 360 degree visibility across all spectrums for multiple kilometres through fog and dust / day and night. the ability to distinguish between friend and foe is a difficult one, but as soon as you can accept a 98% accuracy and allied with an "ENCRYPTED TAG" for all friendly forces you can pretty much eliminate the targeting of friendly forces on a simple battlefield. Inclusion of simple algorithms to distinguish metal barrels and hot/cold ones means that you can also easily separate between armed and unarmed suspects in your FOV (something no soldier can do), inclusion of simple IR-filters (and there are so many of them) on the telefocus lens of the main "vision sensor" allows the bot to identify and classify all living objects in a 360 degree view, and refreshed every few seconds, the lower resolution wide angle view allied with the MM wave radar enables the BOT to respond immediately to any threatening action or incoming fire, faster than a human can react.

Such bots can be used for dangerous SAR missions into enemy territory (and can be fitted with self-destruct mechanism to prevent them falling into enemy hands). also SAPPERS can be BOTS, cheap ones with a single role. and you can use the "uber bot" for SF / FIBUA and border patrol type missions...


also don't forget. fitted with solar thin film coating, modern DC motors the machine can operate autonomosly, thus reducing the huge logistical train necessary for the deployment of humans (see the space probe vs manned space pod comparison).

[Xaito]

anything to back up your theories there (apart from Tom Clancy or similar fiction writers)?

I for one don't believe that robotic machinery is cheaper then human troops (even if we omit - for the sake of discussion- the fact that they can't replace them or what they do) machines need maintenance.

[NavyTimes]

I shall watch the Caprica pilot and get back to you on this one.

[Bro Jangles]

Isnt a Cruise missle just a one way UAV?

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

This thread got me thinking about how distant warfare can be.

In medeval times, warfare was limited to Summer months as people were needed for the planting and harvest seasons. And it was sword against sword.

In the 17th century, you needed to be within musket range to win battles. You still had to worry about the harvest.

The 19th century rifles further increased the gap.

WW1 the machine guns widened the gap further

WW2 aircraft further widened the gap further.

Today, you have drones in Afghanistan shooting missiles flown by 'pilots' in Nevada who get to go home everynight and have a beer.

Somehow I get this sinking feeling that something aint right.

In medieval times ships used to fling arrors/boiling pots at vessels, get within range board

In the 15th century cannons appeared but warfare never changed

No changed until the 19th century when ramming got back into vogue

Now ships don't even need to see an enemy to destroy it.

[XShipRider]

All the wonder weapons in the world can't replace men who can reason. Basic killing can be accomplished but holding and governing territory cannot be attained, let alone maintained.

[wicked_hind]

All the wonder weapons in the world can't replace men who can reason. Basic killing can be accomplished but holding and governing territory cannot be attained, let alone maintained.

X2, you need boots and armor on the ground to seize and hold.

[RamQan]

anything to back up your theories there (apart from Tom Clancy or similar fiction writers)?

I for one don't believe that robotic machinery is cheaper then human troops (even if we omit - for the sake of discussion- the fact that they can't replace them or what they do) machines need maintenance.

Nope, there is only fiction to back my theories, since nothing has happened yet. I didn't write it to persuade someone else. I wrote it to see what others had to say about it.

I also would like to thank everyone for not bringing up Terminator scenarios, which of course is just ridiculous.

As for your second question, yes and no. UAV's are cheaper than manned aircraft, UGV's are more expensive than manned vehicles, but will probably be cheaper in the future. A foot soldier will always be less expensive than any robotic counterpart someone might build in the future, but as you said, people can't be replaced.

The fact that people had to die for war to continue probably have been a pretty strong regulator in war. Imagine when cost is the only issue.

---

I would also like you all to consider the following scenario:

A UAV pilot goes to work in Nevada, like he does every day. A man from country X, which US is at war with travels to Nevada. He goes to a gun market, buys a sniper rifle. He then put on a military uniform (he is part of country X army) goes outside the base where the UAV pilot work and shoots him in the head.

Is the man from country X a murderer or a prisoner of war?

[2495]

Is the man from country X a murderer or a prisoner of war?

Prisoner of War. If he is wearing the enemy countries uniform when he carried out the act, it is a simple act in wartime behind enemy lines.

[Connaught Ranger]

Prisoner of War. If he is wearing the enemy countries uniform when he carried out the act, it is a simple act in wartime behind enemy lines.

Wearing enemy uniform, behind the lines, or in the home country of the enemy is not covered under the Geneva Convention, and leaves the offender to be considered a, spy, b, partisan, penalty for both is death during wartime.

Connaught Ranger

[the_Wicked]

The arguments against it are as far as I'm concerned ridiculous, especially the one where wars were to last longer because there would be less casualties initially. That's in fact an argument for "equalizing" the casualties, as if its somehow more "moral" if the ratio approaches 1:1 than if it's 1000:1. In the end, unmanned combat machines = less risk of human life. Period.

[brainplay]

Drones really need to be thrown out of the debate. During Desert Storm and the Russian/Georgian conflict we saw UAV shot down by manned airplanes...with ease. If we faced any credible air superiority threat the use of Predator drones would probably drop a great deal.

Even packed with the latest greatest gear these air and ground drones still suffer narrow situational awareness making them easy targets to ambush and destroy. Unmanned drones are there to augment troops on the ground. Their capability to replace are incredible low.

Was really hoping those tracked machinegun drones would work out.

[sheytanelkebir]

I don't understand the whole "narrow situational awareness" meme. Today there are optronic sensors with over 100degree coverage by sensor at the widest angle, and with multiple filters as well as LRF/Thermal Imagers they can scan large chunks of space much faster than a human can. The current range of "RPV" (remotely piloted vehicles) as opposed to true UCAVs are limited by the limited FOV of the operators and the late 80s optics fitted to them... so of course the current generation of old-school RPVs can't be transformed into true UCAVs with the addition of a hellfire and stinger...

the new generation of UCAVs are a completely different kettle of fish. the UCVs will have to go through the same generational development (probably starting off as "autonomous mineclearance sappers") and following up as combatants for near-suicidal missions (they don't "look" like TERMINATORS but more like high tech, large versions of the EOD robots in use today).

[2495]

Drones really need to be thrown out of the debate. During Desert Storm and the Russian/Georgian conflict we saw UAV shot down by manned airplanes...with ease. If we faced any credible air superiority threat the use of Predator drones would probably drop a great deal.



Thats why there are stealthy / low observable alternatives.

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/4144/x47b.jpg

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/959/predc.jpg

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/8748/desertprowler.jpg Thats a naughty little number that is - Over Afghanistan too ;)

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/798/phantomray.jpg

So, Predator / Reaper might get a bashing in high threat environments, but others will slip through with ease.

Theres others, that have been in testing / small unit use for 5 years or so, but they are very specialised.