Interesting article. Thoughts on autonomous targeting technology and how (if) it changes the calculus? The Pentagon’s ‘Terminator Conundrum’: Robots That Could Kill on Their Ownhttps://nyti.ms/2eApcwz
-
-
-
I think it is always an appropriate question whether an action is moral or legal, as an issue separate and apart, or perhaps preceding, the cost benefit analysis.
-
In some sense, yes. Though in this case they're intertwined. No matter what, someone has to make a choice. On autonomous killing, I'm wary and would like to see humans kept in the loop. But it brings clear advantages, which means it's probably inevitable.
-
I can't see how autonomous killing would comply with the requirements of the law of armed combat. I don't see how our own lawyers could sign off on that.
-
American lawyers signed off on actions the US previously prosecuted as torture (e.g. waterboarding), so they could probably figure it out. Machines already decide to fire in some systems (e.g. ship missile/aircraft defense). If it works, it's an evolution, not a clean break.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Except he did repudiate measures put in place to protect civilians. Those casualties skyrocketed, but I guess that would ruin the both sides lede you were going for
-
Trump relaxed rules of engagement against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, which led to more civilian casualties. But, as I write in the article, the drone campaign refers to attacks away from warzones, primarily in Pakistan and Yemen. Civilian casualties similar--Obama a little higher.
-
Are terrorists strike moral?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The best piece on this question yet. Drones are better than a B-52 strike.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.