Robotic Weapons Research Articles

Remotely Controlled Armed Surveillance Rover

A remotely operated ground vehicle was designed and developed for use in counter terrorism and counter-insurgency operations by the Indian Army. The Rover can traverse difficult terrain, extreme slopes, inspect suspicious objects (e.g. improvised explosive devices) with a robotic weapon with a camera(even when hidden under a bridge), and give visual feedback to an operator away at a safe distance of certain range. It can be operated using mobile and can be self-triggered when a command is given. Militaries are now equipped with various types of rovers. Rover for assistance and spy purposes are developing. This project represents an application of Rover in the military. This rover is 4-wheeled developed on a rocker-bogie mechanism. According torecent Rover developments, rovers with rocker-bogie mechanismscan glide on rough surfaces, sand, and loose soil easily. Thedegree of freedom for the rover is 4 with the ability to rotate 360°.This rover is equipped with frequency hopping which makes it ananti-hack device. This project is useful for attacking the opponentsin the war without losing our army officers. So by using thisproject we can do war without losing human life on our side.

Information and communication component of the network countermeasure to national security in the military sphere

The article conceptualizes ways of forming strategic guidelines for ensuring national security in the field of countering informational and psychological threats. The elements of the national security strategy, which are potentially significant in view of the development of active forms of information operations on the part of the enemy in the modern conflict, including military ones, are considered. Emphasis is placed on the use of special operations forces units in the field of network countermeasures against threats to national security in the military sphere. Taking this into account requires the development and implementation of the public administration specific mechanisms in the field of the national security ensuring, which are aimed at countering informational and psychological threats. In particular, it is about the need to adequately represent this issue in the national security strategy by defining the specifics of network countermeasures against threats to national security in the military sphere. In particular, it is about the development of the use of new methods of remote influence on the enemy, i.e., the expansion of the space for conducting combat operations and the environments of war, the development of new forms of defense and defensive measures, the growing importance of reconnaissance and sabotage actions in the rear of the enemy, the intellectualization of wars focused on the predominant use of high-precision and robotic weapons. This causes additional tasks to creative use of open source information as well as document analysis from documents like the National Security Strategy, National Military Strategy, taking into account that the main task in the field of military security is the development of deterrence potential, combat-ready armed forces and other components of the defense forces, capable of performing complex tasks in a multidimensional space, development of the components of the defense forces and solving the problems of ensuring the defense of the state. Information measures are an integral part of the state response to threats to national security and one of the main components of the information war aimed at achieving victory in the information space.

ОБҐРУНТУВАННЯ НЕОБХІДНОСТІ СТВОРЕННЯ МОБІЛЬНОГО КОМПЛЕКСУ УПРАВЛІННЯ БЕЗПІЛОТНИМИ ЛІТАЛЬНИМИ АПАРАТАМИ НА БАЗІ ШАСІ ВАНТАЖНОГО АВТОМОБІЛЯ

The conducted SWOT analysis made it possible to develop problematic issues that are proposed during the operation of unmanned aerial vehicles, proposals were made for the creation of a mobile complex of the use of unmanned aerial vehicles based on the chassis of a truck. Formulation of the problem. During hostilities, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) were widely used. The massive use of the latest robotic (automated) weapons and military equipment on the battlefield is changing the nature of units' actions. Currently, almost every combat unit has a UAV application group. The high efficiency of their use is confirmed by high results on the battlefield. The security and defense forces of Ukraine are armed with dozens of types of UAVs for various purposes and with various capabilities for lifting cargo and carrying explosives. The use of UAV combat units in the field. Launches of lethal vehicles are carried out by hand or with the help of launch devices. With this mobile application group, the BPLA, although it is at a distance from the line of the next combat encounter, does not have sufficient security and protection from enemy fire. Preparation for use, maintenance of UAVs and charging of batteries in stationary conditions the day before, which reduces the efficiency of actions.The deployment of mobile groups of UAV operators is carried out on vehicles that are available to the military unit at the time, and which are not adapted for the high-quality performance of the combat mission by the group. UAV operators and equipment are not protected from exposure to low ambient temperatures and have no protection from small arms and shrapnel damage. Time indicators of deployment on the terrain of the complex for launching UAVs and folding after the completion of a combat mission need improvement. Analysis of recent research and publications. Scientific studies on improving the actions of units equipped with UAVs were carried out in the National Guard even before the beginning of the full-scale invasion of the Russian Federation. For example, in [1-2], data are given regarding the need for intelligence information and the development of a rational procedure for the use of intelligence unmanned aerial vehicles. In [3], the methodological apparatus for researching the problems of using information technologies and telecommunication systems in the process of military management is presented. The purpose of the article is to justify the need to create a mobile complex for the use of unmanned aerial vehicles based on a truck chassis. Provide recommendations on the creation of a mobile complex for the use of unmanned aerial vehicles.

Robotic Weapon Systems and Their Compliance with International Law

Robotic Weapon Systems and Their Compliance with International Law

Broń autonomiczna w świetle międzynarodowego prawa humanitarnego

Along the rapid development and proliferation of autonomous robotic weapons, machines begin to replace people on the battlefields. The use by the USA of Predators or Reapers and other unmanned aerial vehicles (so called drones) in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other places in the world clearly signals distancing of the soldiers from their targets. Some military and robotics experts have predicted that “killer robots” – fully autonomous weapons that could select and engage targets without human intervention – could be developed within 20 to 30 years. At present, military officials generally say that humans will retain some level of supervision over decisions to use lethal force, but their statements often leave open the possibility that robots could one day have the ability to make such choices on their own power. In this paper I will concentrate on the last kind of autonomous weapons, namely fully autonomous ones. It should however be noted that so far such a weapon does not yet exist. Nonetheless, lawyers should already be anticipating the effect of these technologies on international humanitarian law and the conduct of warfare. The thesis of the paper goes as follows: the use of autonomous weapons would be contrary to the basic and fundamental principles of international humanitarian law such as the principle of distinction, proportionality and military necessity and thus illegal. Such weapons are not capable of meeting the conditions enshrined in these principles. As such their use would threaten the well-being, life and health of civilians and civilian populations. On the other hand, there are scholars who are of the opinion that prohibiting the use of autonomous weapons would make no sense at all and that the development of such weapons is inevitable and will take place gradually. Moreover, autonomy in weapon systems might positively promote the aims of the laws of war in some technological configurations and operational circumstances – but not in others. As I will try to demonstrate below, the drawbacks of the use of autonomous weapons are of such magnitude that they exclude its legality. In my opinion, it is legal to use autonomous devices aimed at target identification but not autonomous weapons capable of attacking the target without human interference.

AN OVERVIEW ON ROBOTICS AND CONTROL SYSTEMS

A robot is a virtual or mechanical agent. In practice, it is often an electro-mechanical system, which looks and speeds as if it were one of its own. The intent and its own agency. The term robot refers to both physical robots and virtual software agents, but often virtual software agents are called bots. There has been no consensus that machines are qualified as robots, but there is a consensus among experts and the public that some or all of the following can be done such as: walking, operating a device or a component of the environment, the environment Understanding and manipulating it and imparting intelligent behavior that mimics human and animal behaveor. The stories of artificial assistants and companions and and the effort to create them have a long history, but fully autonomous machines were the only programmed first robot to run in the digital system since the 20th century, Unimate, In 1971, hot pieces of metal were picked up from the stamp making machine and made to make their stack. Today, commercial and industrial robots are widely used inexpensively and with greater accuracy and greater reliability than humans. They are also employed for tasks which are very dangerous in human terms. , Messy and boring tasks. Robots are being widely used for manufacturing, assembly and bundling, transportation, earth and space exploration, surgery, weapons manufacturing, laboratory research and consumer and industrial production. Domestic robots are generally common around homes for cleaning and maintenance work. Concerns about the economic impact of robotic weapons and automation are generally common. Remains, a concern that is not resolved by the villainous, intelligent, acrobatic robots described in popular entertainment. Real robots are still benign, retarded, and gross compared to their imaginary counterparts.

War and Peace

The United States Department of Defense (DoD) designs, constructs, and deploys social and autonomous robots and robotic weapons systems. Military robots are designed to follow the rules and conduct of the professions or roles they emulate, and it is expected that ethical principles are applied and aligned with such roles. The application of these principles appear paramount during the COVID-19 global pandemic, wherein substitute technologies are crucial in carrying out duties as humans are more restrained due to safety restrictions. This article seeks to examine the ethical implications of the utilization of military robots. The research assesses ethical challenges faced by the United States DoD regarding the use of social and autonomous robots in the military. The authors provide a summary of the current status of these lethal autonomous and social military robots, ethical and moral issues related to their design and deployment, a discussion of policies, and the call for an international discourse on appropriate governance of such systems.

Leadership Challenges from the Deployment of Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems

Lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) – robotic weapons that have the ability to sense and act unilaterally depending on how they are programmed – will be capable of selecting targets and delivering lethality without any human interaction. This technology may still be in its infancy, but both semi-autonomous and other precursor systems are already in service. This, argues Paddy Walker, requires a material step change in both hardware and software but, once deployed, posits a significant change in how humans wage war. This article considers the behavioural and leadership challenges that arise from the deployment of such weapons and how unsupervised engagements might degrade the commander’s craft. ◼

Cyborgs, Neuroweapons, and Network Command

In this article, we will explore the emerging field of military neurotechnology and the way it challenges the boundaries of war. We will argue that these technologies can be used not only to enhance the cognitive performance of warfighters, but also as a means to exploit artificial intelligence in autonomous and robotic weapons systems. This, however, requires the practice of a collaborative network command and a governing framework of cyborg ethics to secure human control and responsibility in military operations. The discussion of these governing principles adheres to the tradition of military studies. Hence, we do not aim to present a neuroscientific research program. Nor do we wish to embark on technical solutions in disciplines such as artificial intelligence and robotics. Rather, the intention is to make the highly specialized language of these sciences accessible to an audience of military practitioners and policymakers, bringing technological advances and challenges into the discussion of future warfighting.

Leadership Challenges to the Deployment of Autonomous Weapons (AWS)

Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS) are defined as robotic weapons that have the ability to sense and act unilaterally depending on how they are programmed. Such human-out-of-the-loop platforms will be capable of selecting targets and delivering lethality without any human interaction. This weapon technology may still be in its infancy, but both semi-autonomous and other pre-cursor systems are already in service. There are several drivers to a move from merely automatic weapons to fully autonomous weapons which are able to engage a target based solely upon algorithm-based decision-making. This requires material step-change in both hardware and software and, once deployed, posits a significant change in how humans wage war. But complex technical difficulties must first be overcome if this new independent and self-learning weapon category can legally be deployed on the battlefield. AWS also pose basic statutory, moral and ethical challenges. This paper identifies the manifest complexity involved in fielding a weapon that can operate without human oversight while still retaining value as a battlefield asset. The subject’s importance is that several well-tried concepts that have long comprised battlecraft may no longer be fit for purpose. While the recent development pace in these technologies may appear extraordinary, fundamental fault lines endure. The paper also notes the inter-dependent and highly coupled nature of the routines that are envisaged for AWS operation, in particular ramifications arising from its machine learning spine, in order to demonstrate how detrimental are these compromises to AWS deployment models. In highlighting AWS deployment challenges, the analysis draws on broad primary and secondary sources to conclude that Meaningful Human Control (MHC) should be a statutory requirement in all violent engagements.

Regulating human control over autonomous systems

AbstractIn recent years, many sectors have experienced significant progress in automation, associated with the growing advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning. There are already automated robotic weapons, which are able to evaluate and engage with targets on their own, and there are already autonomous vehicles that do not need a human driver. It is argued that the use of increasingly autonomous systems (AS) should be guided by the policy of human control, according to which humans should execute a certain significant level of judgment over AS. While in the military sector there is a fear that AS could mean that humans lose control over life and death decisions, in the transportation domain, on the contrary, there is a strongly held view that autonomy could bring significant operational benefits by removing the need for a human driver. This article explores the notion of human control in the United States in the two domains of defense and transportation. The operationalization of emerging policies of human control results in the typology of direct and indirect human controls exercised over the use of AS. The typology helps to steer the debate away from the linguistic complexities of the term “autonomy.” It identifies instead where human factors are undergoing important changes and ultimately informs about more detailed rules and standards formulation, which differ across domains, applications, and sectors.

High-Precision Visual-Tracking using the IMM Algorithm and Discrete GPI Observers (IMM-DGPIO)

In this work, we propose the integration of a bank of Discrete Generalized Proportional Integral Observers (DGPIO) within an Interacting Multiple Model (IMM) structure in order to improve the precision of visual-tracking tasks. Applications such as visual servoing, robotic assisted surgery and optronic weapon systems require accurate and high-precision measurements provided by real-time visual-tracking systems. In this case, the DGPIO-Bank was designed using two kinematic models based in constant velocity (CV) and constant acceleration (CA) motion profiles. The main feature of the DGPIO-Bank is the active disturbance rejection (ADR) feature which reduces noise in the position signal of a moving object. The resultant algorithm uses a fusion of four important features: state interaction, Kalman filtering, active disturbance rejection and multiple models combination. For performance comparison, we evaluated our proposed IMM-DGPIO algorithm and other state of the art IMM algorithms. Experimental results show that our proposed strategy had the best performance.

Legality of Use and Challenges of New Technologies in Warfare – the Use of Autonomous Weapons in Contemporary or Future Wars

Along with the rapid development and proliferation of autonomous robotic weapons, machines are beginning to replace people on battlefields. The use by the USA of Predators or Reapers and other unmanned aerial vehicles in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other places in the world clearly signals a distancing of soldiers from their targets. In this article I concentrate on fully autonomous weapons. The theses of the article are as follows: the use of autonomous weapons would be contrary to the basic and fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, such as the principles of distinction and proportionality, and thus illegal. As such, their use would threaten the wellbeing, life and health of civilians and civilian populations. Their use would undermine the whole concept of the rules of war. Still, there are scholars who are of the opinion that prohibiting the use of autonomous weapons would make no sense at all and that the development of such weapons is inevitable and will take place gradually. Their use would be an expression of the technological dimension of international security. As this article will attempt to demonstrate, the drawbacks of the use of autonomous weapons are of such magnitude that they exclude the legality of such devices.

The future of war: could lethal autonomous weapons make conflict more ethical?

Lethal Autonomous Weapons (LAWs) are robotic weapon systems, primarily of value to the military, that could engage in offensive or defensive actions without human intervention. This paper assesses and engages the current arguments for and against the use of LAWs through the lens of achieving more ethical warfare. Specific interest is given particularly to ethical LAWs, which are artificially intelligent weapon systems that make decisions within the bounds of their ethics-based code. To ensure that a wide, but not exhaustive, survey of the implications of employing such ethical devices to replace humans in warfare is taken into account, this paper will engage on matters related to current scholarship on the rejection or acceptance of LAWs—including contemporary technological shortcomings of LAWs to differentiate between targets and the behavioral and psychological volatility of humans—and current and proposed regulatory infrastructures for developing and using such devices. After careful consideration of these factors, this paper will conclude that only ethical LAWs should be used to replace human involvement in war, and, by extension of their consistent abilities, should remove humans from war until a more formidable discovery is made in conducting ethical warfare.

De Bello Robotico. An Ethical Assessment of Military Robotics

Abstract This article provides a detailed description of robotic weapons and unmanned systems currently used by the U.S. Military and its allies, and an ethical assessment of their actual or potential use on the battlefield. Firstly, trough a review of scientific literature, reports, and newspaper articles, a catalogue of ethical problems related to military robotics is compiled. Secondly, possible solutions for these problems are offered, by relying also on analytic tools provided by the new field of roboethics. Finally, the article explores possible future developments of military robotics and present six reasons why a war between humans and automata is unlikely to happen in the 21st century.

“The Sort of War They Deserve”? The Ethics of Emerging Air Power and the Debate over Warbots

ABSTRACTAs new military technologies change the character of war by empowering agents in new ways, it can become more difficult for our ethics of war to achieve the right balance between moral principle and necessity. Indeed, there is an ever-growing literature that seeks to apply, defend and / or update the ethics of war in light of what is often claimed to be an unprecedented period of rapid advancement in military robotics, or warbots. To increase confidence that our approach to this development finds success in appropriately constraining war, this article compares our current discourse to the ethical debate over the rise of air power during the interwar period. As moral norms largely failed to constrain air power in World War II, by highlighting the interrelated processes of technological change, ethical debate, and the eventual reconciliation of war practice and war ethics, this historical case offers insights that can help military ethicists maintain their “critical edge” as remote and autonomous robotic weapons continue to mature and proliferate.

Autonomous Weapon Systems: Failing the Principle of Discrimination

In this article, I explore the ethical permissibility of autonomous weapon systems (AWSs), also colloquially known as killer robots: robotic weapons systems that are able to identify and engage a target without human intervention. I introduce the subject, highlight key technical issues, and provide necessary definitions and clarifications in order to limit the scope of the discussion. I argue for a (preemptive) ban on AWSs anchored in just war theory and International Humanitarian Law (IHL), which are both briefly introduced below.

The Just Warrior Ethos: A Response to Colonel Riza

ABSTRACTIn 2014, Colonel M. Shane Riza published an article in this journal arguing that remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) and robotic weapons threaten the US Air Force’s warrior ethos. Riza has clearly articulated the sentiments of one side of a vibrant debate within our service. This paper presents an alternative view; a view held by some who have experienced these new forms and tools of war, and who have wrestled with their implications first-hand. In this paper, we address some methodological concerns with Riza’s approach and then engage some misunderstandings about RPA’s relationship to military history and to risk. The second part of this paper takes a close look at some of the early Just War thinkers to determine what implications the tradition may have on the warrior ethos. We propose, as an alternative to Riza’s position, a return to an ethos grounded in humility, charity, and a conception of war as a last resort; in short, a return to the Just Warrior Ethos.

Beyond Asimov’s laws of robotics: Sleepwalking toward the future?

On 16 May 2014, the first multilateral discussion of lethal autonomous systems was convened at the United Nations Office in Geneva on the margins of the Expert Meeting for the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. The subject of discussion, in more colloquial terms, was the so-called ‘killer robot’ – that is, fully autonomous lethal weapons systems that can select and engage targets without human intervention. During this milestone meeting, discussions touched on the various technical, legal, operational and ethical implications of robotic weapons and, of course, a number of concerns were voiced about a future with weapons void of human control, judgment or compassion.

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.