Article

2011-09-15 Home Front: WoT

Next Step for Armed, Thinking Drones: New Laws

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2011-09-15 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#1 But can we marry one iff it looks like DARYL HANNAH, BLONDE OR BRUNETTE???

Posted by JosephMendiola 2011-09-15 00:27|| 2011-09-15 00:27|| Front Page Top

#2 Just don't connect them to SkyNet; nothing good comes from that...

Posted by Steve White 2011-09-15 00:32|| 2011-09-15 00:32|| Front Page Top

#3 *bleep* the Three Laws! The whole point of drones is to have semi-sentient, autonomous killbots. As for SkyNet, we'll burn that bridge when we come to it.

Posted by SteveS 2011-09-15 01:01|| 2011-09-15 01:01|| Front Page Top

#4 Anybody else saw "I Robot" or Other scary scenarios?
FREE THE MACHINES.
Ummm, No.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2011-09-15 02:55|| 2011-09-15 02:55|| Front Page Top

#5 Who do you blame if a drone mis-fires and kills an innocent -- the programmer, the operational commander, the commander of the air wing?

Software malfunctions in cars will kill far more people than SW malfunctions in semi-autonomous drones.

I recall modern cars have around 100 microprocessors which means 100 SW programs running.

Besides, car manufacturers are easier to sue.

Posted by phil_b 2011-09-15 03:34|| 2011-09-15 03:34|| Front Page Top

#6 They're looking ahead to fully autonomous UCAVs, phil_b

Posted by lotp 2011-09-15 07:44|| 2011-09-15 07:44|| Front Page Top

#7 What happens when a manned aircraft does these things? Seems like lawyers making work for lawyers.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2011-09-15 08:46|| 2011-09-15 08:46|| Front Page Top

#8 lotp: I don't think we'll be seeing fully autonomous drones any time soon.

During Vietnam, because of an intense shortage of junior officers to act as ground Forward Observers with infantry units, the Army very hesitatingly permitted enlisted FOs, who were already very experienced artillerymen, to call in fires.

It was part of the today almost forgotten "Deathwatch" program. And it was insanely effective. Infantry units loved those guys, as they were a hundred times better with calling in fires than any officer they had ever seen.

"Zen and the Art of Fire Missions."

Subsequently, infantry patrol casualties dropped to just "natural" casualties, from disease and accident, because every time there was a hint of enemy, the enemy would be blown to smithereens by the FO before the infantry could get close enough to be attacked by them.

And this bugged the hell out of the command. They hated the very idea of enlisted men calling in fires with a stupid passion. They even argued that it somehow violated the Geneva Conventions to give enlisted men that much responsibility.

So at the first opportunity, the Deathwatch program was killed deader than a doornail. It is only remembered by the former infantrymen whose lives were saved, who made it through months of heavy combat patrols in 'hot' areas without a scratch, while inflicting very serious hurt on the enemy.

I mention all this, because I strongly suspect that the military command just won't stand for it. If it happens at all, it will be a unilateral CIA op, and even then it will only last until the first autonomous drone fouls up and takes out a bus full of orphans.

Posted by Anonymoose 2011-09-15 10:17|| 2011-09-15 10:17|| Front Page Top

#9 When a manned aircraft does such things it is assumed to be at the agency of the pilot unless equipment malfunction can be proved.

Autonomous aircraft will have no pilot, neither onboard nor remote.

Autonomy isn't an either/or condition. We are inching towards it along several dimensions.

Posted by lotp 2011-09-15 10:21|| 2011-09-15 10:21|| Front Page Top

#10 Read Fred Saberhagen's "Berserker" series

Posted by Guillibaldo Hatrack1304 2011-09-15 11:36|| 2011-09-15 11:36|| Front Page Top

#11 When a manned aircraft does such things it is assumed to be at the agency of the pilot unless equipment malfunction can be proved.

We're talking about combat here, right? So the pilot makes a mistake. That's agency? And what are the consequences for the pilot? What compensation do the unintended receive for the tort?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2011-09-15 12:07|| 2011-09-15 12:07|| Front Page Top

#12 Klaatu!
Barada!
N...necktie? nectum? nickel? Definately an N word..

Posted by swksvolFF 2011-09-15 14:42|| 2011-09-15 14:42|| Front Page Top

#13 The mil has a strong reluctance to introduce fully autonomous weapon systems for this very reason. That said, they are clearly more open to stretching the envelope with aircraft than ground systems. The Army won't even field ground-based robotic weapon systems that have a nearby operator in control of the system (e.g.: MAARS robot). Crazy.

Posted by remoteman 2011-09-15 14:57|| 2011-09-15 14:57|| Front Page Top

#14 The Army won't even field ground-based robotic weapon systems that have a nearby operator in control of the system (e.g.: MAARS robot). Crazy.
Posted by remoteman

You might not believe what "The Army" will no longer do or intentionally impedes through mind numbing, morale breaking, bureaucratic hierarchy regarding kinetic strikes.

Posted by Besoeker 2011-09-15 16:34|| 2011-09-15 16:34|| Front Page Top

22:49 Shieldwolf
22:45 Frank G
22:42 Frank G
22:37 Rambler in Virginia
22:32 Rambler in Virginia
22:30 Rambler in Virginia
22:06 tu3031
22:04 Frank G
21:55 Perfesser
21:39 Procopius2k
21:36 Shieldwolf
21:34 Shieldwolf
21:33 Anonymoose
21:27 Lord Garth
21:24 Frank G
21:23 trailing wife
21:21 Frank G
20:52 tu3031
20:48 tu3031
20:40 Steve White
20:29 JosephMendiola
20:27 JosephMendiola
20:06 trailing wife
20:04 trailing wife