Upon taking office, Donald Trump changed a lot, repudiating much of Obama’s legacy. But not the drone campaign. Many criticize drone strikes--on moral, legal, and strategic grounds--but often in a vacuum. Instead, must weigh against alternatives. My latesthttps://arcdigital.media/are-drone-strikes-moral-is-the-wrong-question-98e81ae2f343 …
-
-
Replying to @NGrossman81
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
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Kelly1Alison @NGrossman81
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Kelly1Alison
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NGrossman81 @Kelly1Alison
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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.
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.