UN To Debate Lethal Autonomous Weapons 166
Hallie Siegel writes: Should robots be allowed to make life and death decisions? This will be the topic of heated debate at the United Nations (UN) Palais des Nations in Geneva next week (April 13-17th, 2015). As part of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), experts from all over the world will gather to discuss 'questions related to emerging technologies in the area of lethal autonomous weapons systems.' The Open Roboethics Research Initiative will be presenting public views at the debate.
Human rights groups are urging the UN to ban such weapons. A new report titled "Mind the Gap" details the accountability issues that need to be solved before going any further. "A key concern with fully autonomous weapons is that they would be prone to cause civilian casualties in violation of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. The lack of meaningful human control that characterizes the weapons would make it difficult to hold anyone criminally liable for such unlawful actions."
better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Great idea. 2000 years ago they nailed someone to a tree for saying that. And I don't think the general attitude has changed that much. For starters, the US (and other countries) should stop using drones to kill people. Especially in other countries. It does not matter that the targeted people are considered terrorists. If so catch them or help those countries to catch them and give them a fair trail.
Alternatively, we could say to Ukrainians, NATO, EU and Russia to stop the bloody stupidity taking place in
Re:better idea (Score:5, Informative)
Great idea. 2000 years ago they nailed someone to a tree for saying that. And I don't think the general attitude has changed that much.
Maybe. The number of deaths [googleusercontent.com] over time from war [cloudfront.net] has dropped dramatically, not even adjusting for population growth.
Western Europe has managed to completely give up fighting each other, and that was after millennia of fighting each other. So in 2000 years a lot has improved.
Re: (Score:3)
Europe didn't *completely* give up fighting. Let's not forget the Balkans after the break up of Yugoslavia. Or Ukraine in recent months.
Re: (Score:2)
*Western Europe*
Look at how many wars EU members / NATO allies used to fight against each other.
Re: (Score:2)
but if you count that as an improvement
And you should even if you think the lives of brown people are more important than aryan ubermencsch. Europe is not the only beneficiary of the current period of relative peace.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Western Europe has always been on the forefront of civilization, no?
No. Through most of history, Western Europe has been a wasteland of culture......starting around a thousand years BC, a small corner of the region (Greece) started getting some culture, but the rest was still a garbage heap of warring tribes, mainly until the Renaissance.
Of course, then Europe made a fairly tremendous leap forward, but that was relatively recent in historical terms.
Re: (Score:2)
the rest was still a garbage heap of warring tribes, mainly until the Renaissance.
The tipping point was around the Gregorian revolution in the late 11th century (1050-1150 or thereabouts.) That was the point when Eastern civilizations were starting to stagnate and Western Europe was starting to get its act together. So the Renaissance was less of a "tremendous leap forward" than the bursting in to flower of a plant that had been growing for several centuries.
With regard to concerns about autonomous weapons, the things that people are pointing out as dangers are features from the point o
Re: (Score:2)
The tipping point was around the Gregorian revolution in the late 11th century (1050-1150 or thereabouts.)
Why date it to then, instead of the blossoming under Charlamagne?
Re: (Score:2)
While things are a lot better at the moment, let's not forget there was also a Pax Romana [wikipedia.org] where there was a lull in major conflict.
My worry is that we are building towards another major explosion of violence as resources start to run out, threatening our comfortable way of life. While we have plenty of oil in the world, cheap oil is rapidly running out. Also, we are running out of fish stocks in a large number of areas and population growth is still happening - even if it is slowing down - putting further
Re: (Score:2)
While we have plenty of oil in the world, cheap oil is rapidly running out..
You would be more convincing, if oil price has not dropped 50% in last months.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. And everyone is losing money - including the Saudis.
However, in a few months, when the fracking industry has been destroyed, and the tar sands have been shut down, the prices will return to "normal". It will take years for production to ramp up to where it was before the drop in prices, with the Saudis (and OPEC) reaping all of the profits.
Pax Romana ? Wno? (Score:2)
Pax Romana
Which one was that ? Mary Tamm or Lalla Ward
Re: (Score:2)
Western Europe has managed to completely give up fighting each other, and that was after millennia of fighting each other. So in 2000 years a lot has improved.
About 2000 years ago, we mostly kept the peace for over 200 years [wikipedia.org]. And you're measuring the casualties after the deadliest war in human history [wikipedia.org], particularly when you consider #2 and #3 being ~100 years long and WWII six so it's no wonder normal years look good. And when you consider the global thermonuclear war that almost happened in 1962, I think you're cherry picking data. I think perhaps it's safe to say we've swapped frequency with severity, because I don't think there's any doubt that a potential WWI
Re: (Score:2)
About 2000 years ago, we mostly kept the peace for over 200 years
That's silly, there were constant wars going on during the times of the Roman Empire. It was called Pax Romana because it was peaceful compared to what came after.
Re: (Score:2)
Western Europe has managed to completely give up fighting each other, and that was after millennia of fighting each other. So in 2000 years a lot has improved.
Ha! It has not been NEARLY long enough for you to make such a claim.
Give it 500 years and we'll see if it holds. Heck, give it 100 years.
I doubt it will, humans are funny things...
Re: (Score:2)
Because massive disarmament by the Allies after WWI sure did prevent another Great War.
Re: (Score:2)
First, the causes of WW II are much more complicated than a disarmament or appeasement politics. Second, I am not proposing that. Especially, not unilaterally. The only thing I said was: Stick to the treaty no missile shield in East Europe. That is not a disarmament. Actually, as it has not been deployed yet, it would be just the status quo.
Re: (Score:2)
Such things work at a national level because nations usually have a constitutional level playing field. At the international level you have liberal democracies, semi-democracies, technocracies, autocracies, dictatorships and even a couple of theocracies.
Why would any major power, particularly one like the US, submit itself to a court culled from such a group? If there is ever to be a one world government, it means that the citizens of Shanghai would have to have the same rights the citizens of Riyadh who wo
Re: (Score:1)
If there is ever to be a one world government, it means that the citizens of Shanghai would have to have the same rights the citizens of Riyadh who would have to have the same rights as the citizens of New Jersey, and if the differences remain then fundamental divides between nations remain.
That's not necessarily true; the United States Senate would seem to offer a model that could address that concern. The citizens of New Jersey do not have the same clout within that body as citizens of Vermont or Alaska.
Granted, I do not think a unified global government is possible or desirable, for a lot of reasons, but concerns about the tyranny of the majority are actually easy to address.
Re: (Score:3)
As a resident of a Western liberal democracy, I can tell you right now I don't want to sacrifice my liberties in the likely hopeless cause of no more war. I want my way of life preserved; judicially, politically, economically, diplomatically, and yes, if need be, by force of arms. If the Chinese wish to live under autocratic technocrats, so be it. If they want to do business with us, fine too. But no way in hell do I want those ruthless men calling the shots on my liberties, and if a war has to be fought to
Re: (Score:2)
there are a lot of people who won't give up their national sovereignty to a world government (even if it's a democratic one).
Sounds good until you get to the details. What does a democratic world government look like? Each nation gets one vote = North and South America are fucked. Each human gets one vote = China tells everyone what to do.
Re: (Score:2)
there are a lot of people who won't give up their national sovereignty to a world government (even if it's a democratic one).
Sounds good until you get to the details. What does a democratic world government look like? Each nation gets one vote = North and South America are fucked.
Each human gets one vote = China tells everyone what to do.
Hence a multicameral system. That's a part of the reason we have two houses in the US--one by popular representation and one by state representation.
Re:better idea (Score:5, Interesting)
For starters, the US (and other countries) should stop using drones to kill people.
Yes, it makes much more sense to go back to using manned aircraft in those situations, because that way the aircraft can be louder, bigger, and burn more jet fuel. As a bonus, the planes can perform a lot more dangerous in-flight refueling maneuvers, or make make many more trips to the same region, require larger localized airbases and far more on-the-ground support people and a bigger supply chain.
Or are you really saying you'd prefer that we use a massive ground force to attempt to achieve the same goals?
Oh, I get it. You're speaking code. When you say you don't want drones to be used, what you really mean is you don't want people like ISIS to be counter-attacked, or for it to be risky for groups like Boko Harom or AQAP to move their leadership and people around between attacks on infidel schools, that sort of thing. Can you expand on why you think that's a good thing?
catch them or help those countries to catch them and give them a fair trail.
Oh, I get it, now, You DO want a huge new ground invasion into places like Syria and a giant new force back on the ground in Iraq, so that we can surround and capture thousands of heavily armed militants in what would be a sustained series of big battles and firefights ... which the jihaddis would make absolutely sure occurred in and around innocent civilians, which they've shown repeatedly they're more than happy to see die in order to score propaganda points. Why you prefer prolonged gun battles in populated areas in order to capture people who post videos of themselves torturing people to death in the name of their religion (rather than simply removing them from the battlefield when we catch them out on the road in a vehicle or small convoy) is beyond me. You seem to have no problem with huge numbers of casualties in the interests of trying to capture for trial people who would see a ground force coming for them weeks in advance. Strange priorities you have.
Alternatively, we could say to Ukrainians, NATO, EU and Russia to stop the bloody stupidity taking place in Ukraine
I see. So we should tell Russia to stop attacking Ukrainian military positions, and that will cause Putin to stop doing so? Do you pay no attention at all to what's going on? The Russians have already been "told" to stop invading Ukraine, and they agreed to do so. But of course they're still doing it, and shelling Ukrainian positions every day. What, specifically, do you think should be said to Putin, differently, that would have him change his mind about lying, the way he's doing right now? What words would you use? Be specific.
No, I do not trust the Russians.
Then why are you even saying what you're saying?
However, the West violated with that missile shield the post cold war treaty.
"The west" has violated no such thing. The Soviet Union no longer exists, though it sounds like you'd prefer that it does.
Re: (Score:2)
Now you are getting it. War should be costly, difficult, and sap your resources. Otherwise you make mass killing far too easy.
Re: (Score:3)
So what happens when you do have a costly, difficult war that saps your resources? Why propaganda of course! And the effects of that propaganda don't simply go away when the war is done. Neither will the military-industrial complex which now represents a huge proportion of your GDP. A costly war requires the entire society to be reshaped around it, and thus acquires a life of its own, which lasts way beyon
Re: (Score:2)
Now you are getting it. War should be costly, difficult, and sap your resources.
Exactly. And we use all of the tools at our disposal - especially the most efficient ones we can when they make sense, things like drones - to make it costly and more difficult for groups like ISIS and Al Queda to do what they're trying to do.
Otherwise you make mass killing far too easy.
That's the whole point. Tools like drones are designed to help stop mass killers like ISIS without having to use less-precise, larger-scale weapons. You do get that, right?
Re: (Score:1)
Great idea. 2000 years ago they nailed someone to a tree for saying that.
And by a thousand years ago they were going to war in his name. People will seize on anything to rationalize what they want to do, aided by the bottomless human capacity for inconsistency. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if someday to learn there were "Gandhian" terrorists.
Don't get me wrong, I think ideals are important. But we shouldn't expect too much from them. An ideal is only as good as the people who espouse it.
Re: (Score:2)
For starters, the US (and other countries) should stop using drones to kill people. Especially in other countries. It does not matter that the targeted people are considered terrorists. If so catch them or help those countries to catch them and give them a fair trail.
What is interesting is how far off you really are there, without even knowing it.
"give them a fair trial"
Interesting choice of words, the only catch is most of the people in those countries have a different idea of what that means than you do. Most of them don't feel that you have the right to capture and judge them in the first place.
To their way of thinking, killing them with a drone and capturing them and giving them a mock trial (as they would view it) is really two sides of the same coin.
If you are go
Re: better idea (Score:2)
You did not understand what I intended to day. For example, in Pakistan, we should let the Pakistani deal with it. In Yemen we should not support Saudi Arabia which resulted in terrorists being released from prisons. If someone needs to be arrested somewhere for crimes let the locals do that because it is their territory and not ours.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
We have all the resources to enable a leisure society with resources for all. Yet the resistance to this simple and obvious truth, even from so-called intelligent people on this forum, is quite remarkable.
People don't want solutions, they want impossible to achieve dreams. Witness the success of religion, or its geek equivalent, Cosmism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think perhaps "ending war" is looking at the wrong end of things, because there's nothing much you can do other than say "let's be nice to each other." Peace isn't obtained by banning weapons of war. It's obtained when there's no longer any reason to fight a war. Or, perhaps put more cynically, when both sides have too much to lose by fighting a war.
Let's start by making the world free and prosperous, and encouraging the free trade of not only products, but culture and ideas. I have a feeling that thi
Re: (Score:2)
Let's start by making the world free and prosperous
We don't have the energy and resources for that. In fact, a lot of the resources are used faster than they are replenished. Not only fossil fuels, but also old aquifers and phosphorous, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, a lot of the resources are used faster than they are replenished. Not only fossil fuels, but also old aquifers and phosphorous, for example.
So what? The resources which aren't being recycled happen to be quite plentiful and/or have adequate substitute goods.
Re: (Score:2)
The resources which aren't being recycled happen to be quite plentiful and/or have adequate substitute goods.
Yeah, when you're part of the top 1% of the world, everything seems quite plentiful.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, when you're part of the top 1% of the world, everything seems quite plentiful.
I guess witty and at least moderately intelligent comebacks are another depleted resource. There are objective ways to measure these things which don't require me to be part of the "1%".
We pretty much have (Score:2)
What you might be looking for is a way to end occupations and large scale violence. Iraq and Afghanistan aren't wars. What's going on in Mexico isn't a war. There's no single combatant to subdue. There's no legitimate government organization to fight. etc, etc. If you want that you have to deal with poverty. People with good economic options don't become terrorists or a drug lo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
+5 Insightful, really?
Assuming war isn't going to disappear overnight, this is a conversation that has to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're seriously saying that there's nothing to discuss here, then? Seriously?
Heh, you think fully autonomous weapons are going to come before the end of war?
I don't care about 'fully'. In the short term, I care about the technology that's already at our fingertips: a robot with a machine-gun that is able to assess a situation and then 'decide' (without human intervention) to shoot the people it deems to be the enemy.
Do you count landmines as fully autonomous?
Interesting example. In a sense, yes, I guess so. The problems with landmines arise precisely because they make poor 'decisions' to kill people, no?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care about 'fully'. In the short term, I care about the technology that's already at our fingertips: a robot with a machine-gun that is able to assess a situation and then 'decide' (without human intervention) to shoot the people it deems to be the enemy.
OK, that's not really much more interesting than land mines, is it?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it is. A landmine malfunction can't take out a village, and it's not actively selecting targets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We're not going to have a weapon that can do both of those for a long time.
Wrong. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, right you are :-P
Google also turned up the Super aEgis II, but there doesn't seem to be much out there on it - I'm not sure quite how automated it really is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine 'quality' can be parameterised, in a sense. If you have a very conservative turret, it would only shoot when it's damn sure it ought to, even if that means letting friendly soldiers get shot down because it's so cautious.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is quite obvious. We as in all flipping humans. Including you and the president of China.
Re: (Score:2)
So long as there are fundamental conflicts between the interests of nations, war is always a possibility.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, just as not long ago murder was an alternative to solve personal conflicts. Fortunately, the evolution of society made it a more costly alternative, as in you'll pay with the restriction of your liberty if you choose it.
To solve the problem of war we would need transparency and real accountability for those who command it, and to remove incentives from the war industry. In other words, remove the opportunity Dick Cheney had, when he made a fortune by making Halliburton's stock skyrocket with his crime
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, just as not long ago murder was an alternative to solve personal conflicts. Fortunately, the evolution of society made it a more costly alternative, as in you'll pay with the restriction of your liberty if you choose it.
There are plenty of places in the world where killing is still an accepted way to solve personal conflicts.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at those ISIS and Taliban sociopaths. There is no reasoning with people who think they are doing their gods work.
So by "reasoning" are you referring to our invasion of their country with the expectation that we would be greeted as liberators and rose petals would be strewn at our feet?
Re: (Score:3)
You may recall that the US asked Afghanistan to hand over Bin Laden and the Taliban refused?
Thank you... this...
At the end of the day, if one nation wants something (whatever it is) that another nation has, and the other nation doesn't want to give it up, war is one of the possible solutions.
I don't like violence, but sometimes it works pretty darn well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, just as not long ago murder was an alternative to solve personal conflicts. Fortunately, the evolution of society made it a more costly alternative, as in you'll pay with the restriction of your liberty if you choose it.
Yes, that works because there is a government over the top of society.
At the end of the day, you lack the power to fight the government, so if they want to put you into prison, they can.
War exists because at the end of the day, when two nations can't agree and one side doesn't want to "go the other way", then war happens.
Negotiation requires to people to want to do it. If one side decides that they want more than the other side will give, their other option is to take it by force of arms.
War doesn't requir
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
China is a member of the community of nations and seems content (today and historically) to play in their own sandbox most of the time. What do you purpose to do with assholes like ISIL? There's no magic pill that's capable of turning murderous thugs into Jean-Luc Picard.
Re: (Score:3)
I suggest you take a look at what China is doing in the South China Sea and its economic activities in Africa. China is stealthily building its own economic empire. Despite all Putin's machismo and brutality, it's no accident that the US is more concerned about China as a medium and long term threat than Russia.
Re: (Score:1)
I suggest you take a look at what China is doing in the South China Sea and its economic activities in Africa.
I suggest you open a history book and review the Monroe Doctrine. They're not doing anything that every up and coming power before them has not already done. They're taking steps to protect their critical interests and expand their economic clout. You can't seriously have expected them to do anything else.
The real trick will be what happens when their critical interests (real or perceived) conflict with those of another Great Power. My assumption and hope is that we'll be able to come to an understandi
Re: (Score:2)
The real trick will be what happens when their critical interests (real or perceived) conflict with those of another Great Power. My assumption and hope is that we'll be able to come to an understanding that both sides can live with. In any case, you'll more than China's activities in the South China Sea to convince me that they're a greater threat to world peace than barbarians with an end times ideology that refuse to play by the rules of the civilized world. The Chinese think differently than Westerners do, but they're still rational human beings that you can have a meeting of the minds with.
People have hoped that throughout history. It only works if the political and interpersonal dynamics of the situation allow for it. The biggest problem is probably that international rational narratives of countries are critically distinct from internal nationalist narratives of international relations--both countries work to hammer out a deal that lets them each present the same rational agreement as something their constitutents will like. As a result they're both lying to their constituents all the ti
Re: (Score:1)
Think of how difficult it is right now to make an agreement with Iran--it might well happen but there's A LOT of pushback because of domestic narratives.
The consequences of a failure to come to terms with Iran do not rise to the level of mutually assured destruction. Nor is the regime in Beijing a revolutionary one that's trying to export their ideology to their neighbors while identifying the United States as evil embodied. We were able find enough common ground with the Soviet Union to make agreements that both sides could live with, I'm optimistic enough to believe that the same will happen with China if push comes to shove.
Iran? Well, the jury is st
Re: (Score:2)
The Monroe Doctrine was issued in 1832. It's main purpose was to warn the European nations that any interference in Central or South America would automatically result in a US military response. However, that ancient doctrine from a bygone era has absolutely nothing to do with China's attempts to increase their influence in the South China Sea region. China's activities are particularly risky because the US has long standing mutual defense treaties with Japan, South Korea, and Australia. If any of the other
Re: better idea (Score:2)
Nobody said it is easy. In the end we must find a solution to the war and unrest problem or it will be our undoing. However, I do not have a solution.
No (Score:1)
You can't give "things" that have nothing to lose that power, it should always be a human that the same could happen too.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't give "things" that have nothing to lose that power, it should always be a human that the same could happen too.
Really? Because the consensus on Slashdot seems to be that pilot-less airliners and driver-less automobiles are a good thing that removes human error from the equation. We're to believe that software engineers are smart enough to account for all conceivable air disaster scenarios but not smart enough to build an IFF [wikipedia.org] system into an armed autonomous weapons system?
Personally I think both ideas are bad ones, I just find it curious that the group-think around here views humans behind the controls of an airli
More Variables (Score:2)
You can't give "things" that have nothing to lose that power, it should always be a human that the same could happen too.
Really? Because the consensus on Slashdot seems to be that pilot-less airliners and driver-less automobiles are a good thing that removes human error from the equation. We're to believe that software engineers are smart enough to account for all conceivable air disaster scenarios but not smart enough to build an IFF [wikipedia.org] system into an armed autonomous weapons system?
Personally I think both ideas are bad ones, I just find it curious that the group-think around here views humans behind the controls of an airliner as a problem but desires them behind the controls of a hellfire missile platform.
Those are easier scenarios to program. I believe we also have plenty of computer-fired weapons systems, but only for very specific scenarios.
Re: (Score:1)
It's easier to write a program that can pull this off [wikipedia.org] than to write one that can identify this guy [wikipedia.org] as an enemy and launch a hellfire at him?
Facebook has already figured out how to do #2, sans the actual launching of weapons part.
Well... (Score:1)
It's not actually as if human soldiers were infallible, never kill civilians or loot and rape...
I mean, if you look at REAL wars you see everything of this happening all the time. Because humans are not only error-prone too, they're also prone to act out of hate or revenge.
The first thing to do would be to determine the level of things going wrong when soldiers are involved. Then look if and how things could improve with robots.
It's just as with self-driving cars: as long as you compare their safety with an
Isn't a Claymore or mine an "autonomous" weapon? (Score:1)
What exactly constitutes an "Autonomous Weapon". Dead falls, punji traps, and other set and forget things meant to "passively" kill, mechanical traps...ect. I see this more of just, letting the people who don't care about the laws having these things and the people looking to defend themselves that do abide by the law not. /never owned a fire arm in my life. I do own a sword and a nice set of steak knives, which if I set up right could also be a considered "autonomous" weapons.
Re: (Score:3)
Traps are fundamentally defensive in nature. Autonomous robotic soldiers are offensive.
Re: (Score:2)
No they are not, you certainly can use traps as offensive weapons, have you looked at what IAD's are used for? They restrict movement in both time and resources to clear them. They are used to harass supply lines. They can be well unitized to cover potential escape and maneuvering routes that you can use you own maneuvering to make appealing or push your opponent into.
Automated weapons are potentially much safer to civilians than land mines.
Don't we already have conventions? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dilemma of determinism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... [wikipedia.org]
I'm going to say that any reasonable definition of Free Will that is incompatible with determinism is a definition for a thing that doesn't exist, regardless of how deterministic or non-deterministic the environment is.
I will however accept that reasonable definitions for Free Will can be made that are compatible with determinism (and non-determinism). I feel that the difference between Compatibilism and Incompatibilism is, at that point, simply a m
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Already happens (Score:2)
hmmm (Score:1)
would make it difficult to hold anyone criminally liable for such unlawful actions."
Not in my mind, the corporation would be one guilty party, then the power structure that ordered it built.
Sounds good! (Score:2)
Cripes (Score:3)
Forget the weapons (Score:2)
I think if nations are going to continue to engage in warfare to achieve their goals, it's time to get civilized about it. Let's just take a gander at the old original Star Trek episode for a nice glimpse of what civilized war will look like some day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org]
Way Too Late (Score:2)
International law (Score:2)
Accountability? Just a thought, but maybe (Score:2)
Its obvious. (Score:2)
It ought to be obvious for any sane person that the one who authorized the deployment of the autonomous weapon must be held criminally responsible for any civilian casualties or war crimes this authorization leads to.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If people want to fight a war, they need to do it with a gun in hand on the battlefield.
How about without a gun? Then you really have to be determined.
Re: (Score:2)
This would strike me as a policy that would invite belligerents to fake enemy robot attacks on themselves so they could say "Those dirty fuckers violated the laws, they're automatically guilty all the way up!!!!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And how do you enforce these wishes? A valid defense to your enforcement will always be "My robots are bigger than your robots. Therefore, I am not guilty."
Enforcement of military rules of engagement are usually the responsibility of the power whose military is engaged. Sometimes there are agreements in place (e.g. ICJ jurisdiction for crimes against humanity). Sometimes the only way it happens is by regime change. Kaderov, for example, is a murdering despot who is a head of state protected by the Kremlin; so long as Stalin supports him, there's nothing that can be done.
Re: (Score:2)
This, and they only accept the International Court of Justice's jurisdiction on a case by case basis.
Re: (Score:2)