Robotic Weapons Research Articles

Defining the Emerging Notion of Meaningful Human Controll in Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS) 2016

The emerging notion of ‘Meaningful Human Control’ (MHC) was suggested by NGO Article 36 as a possible solution to the challenges that are posed by Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS). Various states, NGOs and scholars have welcomed this term. However, the challenge is that MHC is not defined in international law and as of present, there is no literature that extensively or normatively defines it. In this paper, I seek to discuss questions that I consider helpful in defining the MHC. Control that is exercised by humans over weapons they use has been changing in nature and degree. In the beginning, weapons were mere tools in the hands of fighters who exercised direct control. With the invention of technology, there has been considerable automation of control that was previously exercised by humans. The invention of drones has seen remote control of weapons, making it possible for humans to project force while thousands of miles away from the target. On the horizon are AWS, robotic weapons that once activated, do not need any further human intervention. In the case of AWS, humans seem to be ‘surrendering’ or delegating control of weapons to computers. In as much as this may seem convenient, efficient and safe, it raises far reaching concerns. For that reason, many scholars and organisations are insisting that MHC over weapons must be maintained. In order to define MHC, I propose that the international community must ask the following questions: i. What is the purpose of MHC? ii. Who should exercise that MHC over weapons and when? Is it manufacturers, programmers, the individuals who deploy them or all of them? iii. Over what aspects of AWS should one exercise MHC?In answering the above questions, I note that one of the major concerns is that AWS may create a legal responsibility vacuum. For that reason, I suggest that MHC exercised by humans over AWS should be of such a nature that the weapon user is potentially responsible for all ensuing actions of the robots. To define the nature of control that allows responsibility, I consider the international law jurisprudence on the notion of ‘control’ as the basis for responsibility. I point out that such control should be exercised over the ‘critical functions’ of AWS, in particular, those that relate to decision-making. There are already disagreements in the AWS debate as far as what decision-making means. I therefore discuss how that word should be defined as a step towards the definition of MHC.I note there are various actors involved in the development and deployment of AWS. The fundamental question is whether each actor needs to exercise MHC or whether the term should be defined as a cumulative concept – summing up the different roles that are played by designers, roboticists, programmers, manufacturers, states and combatants. I argue that if MHC is meant to be a legal standard upon which the responsibility for use of AWS is determined, then one of the common mistakes among debaters is the attempt to define MHC without a specific actor in mind. The suggestion that the definition of MHC should be a standard focussing on a specific actor is not to imply that there should be only one standard and all other actors should be forgotten. Rather, the term MHC should zero in on each actor, producing separate definitions and standards to which the different actors should adhere to. Because the control that is exercised by the aforementioned actors is subject to different standards, the test for the meaningfulness of the control exercised by each of them ought to be different.

Just say “no!” to lethal autonomous robotic weapons

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to consider the question of equipping fully autonomous robotic weapons with the capacity to kill. Current ideas concerning the feasibility and advisability of developing and deploying such weapons, including the proposal that they be equipped with a so-called “ethical governor”, are reviewed and critiqued. The perspective adopted for this study includes software engineering practice as well as ethical and legal aspects of the use of lethal autonomous robotic weapons. Design/methodology/approach – In the paper, the author survey and critique the applicable literature. Findings – In the current paper, the author argue that fully autonomous robotic weapons with the capacity to kill should neither be developed nor deployed, that research directed toward equipping such weapons with a so-called “ethical governor” is immoral and serves as an “ethical smoke-screen” to legitimize research and development of these weapons and that, as an ethical duty, engineers and scientists should condemn and refuse to participate in their development. Originality/value – This is a new approach to the argument for banning autonomous lethal robotic weapons based on classical work of Joseph Weizenbaum, Helen Nissenbaum and others.

Scientists Campaign Against Killer Robots

A global campaign to control robotic weapons gains momentum.

THE MORALITY OF AUTONOMOUS ROBOTS

While there are many issues to be raised in using lethal autonomous robotic weapons (beyond those of remotely operated drones), we argue that the most important question is: should the decision to take a human life be relinquished to a machine? This question is often overlooked in favor of technical questions of sensor capability, operational questions of chain of command, or legal questions of sovereign borders. We further argue that the answer must be ‘no’ and offer several reasons for banning autonomous robots. (1) Such a robot treats a human as an object, instead of as a person with inherent dignity. (2) A machine can only mimic moral actions, it cannot be moral. (3) A machine run by a program has no human emotions, no feelings about the seriousness of killing a human. (4) Using such a robot would be a violation of military honor. We therefore conclude that the use of an autonomous robot in lethal operations should be banned.

Militainment and mechatronics: Occultatio and the veil of science fiction cool in United States Air Force advertisements

In 2009, the United States Air Force aired a series of science fiction-themed recruitment commercials on network television and their official YouTube channel. In these advertisements, the superimposition of science fiction imagery over depictions of Air Force operations frames these missions as near-future sci-fi adventure, ironically summarized by the tagline: "It's not science fiction. It's what we do every day." Focusing on an early advertisement for the Air Force's Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle, this essay explores how themes essential to the science fiction genre play a role in influencing contemporary attitudes about autonomous and semi-autonomous robotic weapons, as well as the way in which the aesthetic and functional qualities of these advanced technologies are used to frame moral arguments about their use. As a reconfiguration of the near-future battleground in the guise of science fiction, the "Reaper" ad reveals the way in which science fiction has come to serve as a functional-aesthetic benchmark and cultural sounding board, against which "every day" technologies can be measured and claims about their value, ethos, and social appeal are made. This essay explores the ethical entanglements between science fiction film and video games, and military technology, and the complex role science fiction plays in influencing public attitudes towards military technologies.

THE CASE AGAINST ROBOTIC WARFARE: A RESPONSE TO ARKIN

Semi-autonomous robotic weapons are already carving out a role for themselves in modern warfare. Recently, Ronald Arkin has argued that autonomous lethal robotic systems could be more ethical than humans on the battlefield, and that this marks a significant reason in favour of their development and use. Here I offer a critical response to the position advanced by Arkin. Although I am sympathetic to the spirit of the motivation behind Arkin's project and agree that if we decide to develop and use these machines they ought to be programmed to behave ethically, there are several major problems with his view as it stands. At present, it is not clear whether such machines would be capable of behaving more ethically than humans. More importantly, to the extent that humans would remain in the context of war, human moral transgressions will continue, especially in the face of complicated ethical challenges accompanying automated warfare. Moreover, even if machines could be more ethical than humans in certain ways and in certain situations, this says nothing about whether warfare that contains these machines would itself be overall more ethical than warfare that does not include them as participants, or whether the inclusion of lethal robots is the best way to guard against human moral transgressions in war.

The Right to Bear (Robotic) Arms

Can robotic weapons be “Arms” under the Second Amendment? This Article argues that they can. In particular, it challenges the claim that the Second Amendment protects only weapons that can be carried in one’s hands, which has roots in both Supreme Court Second Amendment doctrine (District of Columbia v. Heller) and scholarship. Scrutinizing these roots shows that Heller did not intend to create such a requirement and that little, if any, constitutional basis for it exists.This Article also contextualizes robotic weapons within the established Second Amendment framework for arms. Robotic weapons are not yet arms, but there is no legal impediment — nor should there be — to them becoming arms.Finally this Article presents an alternative theory of Second Amendment protection for robotic weapons based on auxiliary rights, in light of the Seventh Circuit case United States v. Ezell. It posits that Second Amendment auxiliary rights include the right to employ a bodyguard, whether human or robot.

Into the Caves of Steel: Precaution, Cognition and Robotic Weapon Systems Under the International Law of Armed Conflict

The pace of development with respect to robotic weapons systems is staggering. Often formulated in the context of a desire of the ‘haves’ States to minimize battlefield casualties and to reduce monetary costs, technological advancement holds a number of ramifications for the law of armed conflict. Specifically, as technology introduces the possibility of increasingly autonomous forms of robotic weapon systems, the implications of augmenting precision while removing, for all intents and purposes, direct control by or involvement of human beings (‘in the loop’) must be examined, along with differentiated responsibilities of the ‘haves’ versus the ‘have-nots’. The present article takes as a foundation the international humanitarian law principle of precaution, as codified in Article 57 of Additional Protocol I, to assess various aspects of the applicability of the relevant provisions to these new weapons systems, and in particular draws conclusions as to how precaution could influence future developments.

New wars and new soldiers: military ethics in the contemporary world

Contents: Introduction, Paolo Tripodi and Jessica Wolfendale Part I New Visions of Just War Theory: 'New wars', terrorism, and just war theory, Jessica Wolfendale Just war, irregular war, and terrorism, Stephen Coleman The jus post bellum, C.A.J. (Tony) Coady. Part II Humanitarian Intervention: High-fliers: who should bear the risk of humanitarian intervention?, Gerhard A~verland On a duty of humanitarian intervention, David Lefkowitz. Part III New Technologies in the Battlefield: Emerging military technologies: a case study in neurowarfare, Nicholas Evans Robotic weapons and the future of war, Robert Sparrow. Part IV New Actors in the Battlefield: Ethics and mercenaries, Uwe Steinhoff Ethics and the human terrain: the ethics of military anthropology, George R. Lucas Jr To whom does a private military commander owe allegiance?, Deane-Peter Baker. Part V Combat Behavior and Training: Deconstructing the evil zone: how ordinary individuals can commit atrocities, Paolo Tripodi Psychological foundations of unethical actions in military operations, J. Peter Bradley Moral formation of the strategic corporal, Rebecca J. Johnson Loyalty and professionalization in the military, Peter Olsthoorn Index.

Application of a remote image surveillance system in a robotic weapon

As one of the major steps toward a fully intelligent autonomous robotic weapon, we have made progress in three major areas, (1) design of the surveillance system by an AVR microcontroller, (2) implementation of the design mechanism, and (3) performance of the human- machine interface surveillance system via the LabVIEW graphical programming environment, so that the supervisor can control the vehicle with a keyboard or a specially adapted mouse. In order to accomplish all these achievements, there have been major additions and overhauls in both system software codes and system circuit board developments. All these developments, including a new algorithm and hardware implementation, are described in this article. The experimental results have shown the practicality of the AVR microcontroller, the LabVIEW graphical programming environment, and ZigBee wireless technology applied to a robotic weapon.

Automating War: The Need for Regulation

New technological developments in the area of robotics and artificial intelligence have made robotic weapons systems of increasing autonomy possible. Although thousands of unmanned systems have been deployed, the vast majority are unarmed, used primarily for reconnaissance or removal of explosives. But deployment of armed robotic weapons has begun and promises to accelerate rapidly in the next decade. This article begins by proposing definitions of autonomous or robotic weapons, outlines the most important obstacles to their introduction, and options for arms control. It makes three claims: first, robotic weapons such as unmanned vehicles could largely replace human soldiers in the battlespace in one or two decades; second, for technical, economic, and operational reasons robotic weapons will become increasingly autonomous; finally, these new types of conventional weapons could result in new dangers to international security that should be addressed before the weapons are introduced and proliferate widely. It is suggested that an outright ban would be unlikely to be successful and that it may not even be desirable. A ban of particular types of offensive automatic weapons (AW) and special provisions on defensive types would make most sense.

Predators or plowshares? arms control of robotic weapons

With the development of the General Atomics MQ-1 Predator, robotic weapons came of age. The operations of this unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and northern Africa in the last few years have given us a glimpse of the future of high-tech war. It is a future in which thousands of miles separate those firing weapons from those whom they kill, in which joystick jockeys have replaced pilots and soldiers, and in which the psychological barriers to killing are greatly reduced by the distance between weapon operators and their targets. Perhaps more importantly, it is a future in which wars are more likely, in which decisions about when weapons are fired and who they are fired at are increasingly in the hands of machines, and in which the public has little knowledge of or control over what is being done in its name. Finally, it is a future that is likely to come about not because it represents a better, less destructive, way of fighting war but because the dynamics driving the development of unmanned weapon systems (UMS) are likely to dictate that they be used more and more often. Now that we have had a glimpse of this future, it is time to begin thinking about whether - and how - we might avoid it by adopting an arms control regime designed to limit the development and deployment of robotic weapons.

The Ethics of Autonomous Military Robots

The U.S. military has started to construct and deploy robotic weapons systems. Although human controllers may still be monitoring the functioning of the technology, the next logical step is to transfer incrementally more of the decision-making power to the robots themselves. Thus, this article seeks to examine the ethical implications of the creation and use of "autonomous weapons systems."