DIY hi-tech weapons, Libya

[Admin]

The ethics part of my brain is tingling . . .

Libya rebels make weapons from scraps

[TrickyNekro]

Need births technology... And Admin why is your ethics part tingling? Don't you do exactly the same thing... :-p

[Admin]

Admin why is your ethics part tingling? Don't you do exactly the same thing... :-p

I don't make weaponized robots

I do robot research (basic science) for the Navy. The unarmed robot fish, in the long term, is intended for surveillance and de-mining capabilities. There are enough ways to kill people already, I don't need to invent more of them . . .

[newInRobotics]

Situation in Libya forces people to do so. It's either they kill, or get killed...

I think it is clear what any of us would do in such case...

[TrickyNekro]

Admin why is your ethics part tingling? Don't you do exactly the same thing... :-p

I do robot research (basic science) for the Navy. The unarmed robot fish, in the long term, is intended for surveillance and de-mining capabilities. There are enough ways to kill people already, I don't need to invent more of them . . .

Surveillance and spying is so close in terms. Anyhow, I was talking about generally about America and EU.

Ends do satisfy the means sometimes.... If the ends are noble then that shouldn't be bad. We are talking about the freedom of these people there.
You see weapons have also their way of talking not only killing.

[corrado33]

See I think of it the other way around...

If we had ALL weaponized robots, instead of killing people we would have a sort of deadly chess game with the bots.  Wars would be decided over oil, motors, and actuators and not blood, sweat, and tears. 

But then where do we draw the line?  Where are robots allowed to be deployed and where aren't they?  Who's to stop someone from destroying a city with a dozen heavily armed bots? 

Well, I guess someone could easily destroy a city with a few tanks too.... so I guess the answer is politics. 

[Admin]

For those interested in learning more about ethics in robotic warfare, I'd recommend this book: Governing Lethal Behavior in Autonomous Robots


I haven't read it (yet), but I went to a talk by the author and it was clear to me he definitely knew what he was talking about and had researched it for quite a long time.


corrado33, if one side can't win using traditional warfare, they'll turn to asymmetric warfare, ie terrorism (bombing civilians). Some theorize that a country is much more likely to go to war if they don't have casualties on their side (because only robots are sent), and that's not good either.

[corrado33]

corrado33, if one side can't win using traditional warfare, they'll turn to asymmetric warfare, ie terrorism (bombing civilians). Some theorize that a country is much more likely to go to war if they don't have casualties on their side (because only robots are sent), and that's not good either.

Ahhhh, that makes sense. 

In general I think wars are wrong, but because everybody in the world has their own ideas to what is "right", a world without war will probably never happen. 

I'd still love to see a field full of robots with guns go at it!

Kinda like robot wars on steroids!

[TrickyNekro]

they'll turn to asymmetric warfare, ie terrorism (bombing civilians).

From when asymmetric warfare turned into terrorism?

Terrorism sometimes may be considered asymmetric warfare, but in some very exact scenarios.

Most countries that lack the man power train for asymmetric warfare.
Many battles of the WW2 were won due to asymmetric warfare.

Drones can be used for asymmetric warfare, but mainly for morale reasons.
They can't be killed (I mean the don't die like a living thing) and you may have to waste more ammo to get them down.

When fighting for your home and family, you can do extreme things. But building robots to defend yourself... for me it's totally legit.

[Admin]

oops, good point. What I meant was, terrorism is just one example of asymmetric warfare.

[TrickyNekro]

oops, good point. What I meant was, terrorism is just one example of asymmetric warfare.

Terrorism can work only to plunder the troops' morale under certain conditions.
Like hitting a hospital when laying siege on a city.

And it's forbidden under the international laws of war (not that big hunters care about them).

Looking back to WW2 for example, WW2 was an act of terror of both sides.
The axis forces used terrorism, but the allied forces also replied on same terms. Many many examples.

Generally, wars are a bad thing, hope they never happened in the first place, still there are things worth fighting for.
Let's hope that the conditions don't meet for this to happen.

Best Regards, Lefteris
Greece