What Does It Mean To Be Irresponsible?

Over the past few decades, military equipment has received major technological advancements and has been reaching new heights. Modern improvements to technology have almost entirely changed the outlook we have on war. Robots have proven beneficial in carrying out dangerous tasks that involve casualties, but questions arise when robots are used to carry out missions that involve maintaining peace. More specifically, robots in war.

Technology has advanced rapidly over the years, illustrating the potential disasters that may come from further advancements. This is why many novels or movies revolve around this concept as just the thought of a sentient robot not only fascinates us, but scares us as well. There are potential risks that can occur and when at that point, the technology becomes more advanced than humans. This fear creates fascinating theories on the possibilities of future dystopian worlds as it may actually become reality.

In this paper I will be discussing, analyzing, explaining, and showcasing the various benefits to society and problematic issues that arise with the continued increase in usage. More specifically, I will be writing about the legal and ethical, security, and social issue stemming from drones and small robots in our current society.

“If we continue to develop our technology without wisdom or prudence, our servant may prove to be our executioner.” Theses dark and foreboding words from U.S. Army General Omar Bradley serve as solemn reminder of the impact that modern technology has had on war and how we wage it. But Bradley was referring to the controversy revolving around nuclear weapons in the nineteen-fifties. In world of today; however, the controversy lies in the use of drones. These remotely controlled planes can be used to spy and, most questionably, to kill. Some argue that these drones save American lives by separating the soldier from the battlefield. Others say that this separation will lead to an unrealistic view of war and its consequences. Regardless of how they shape the world, new technologies like the drone will continue to mold the concept of war in the modern era.

Now while combat robot technology is still in its infancy, that does not mean that DARPA and other military researchers around the world are sitting idly by. There are some very serious future implications with the development of combat

When discussing the potentiality of “robot weapons” it is imperative to critically assess the use of drone warfare as its natural predecessor. According to a 2013 Gallup Poll, “65% support drone attacks on terrorist abroad”, in the United States. Drone warfare is attractive because it claims to keep soldiers safe from on the ground dangers. However, drone pilots, on average, have much higher levels of PTSD than their counterparts in the field. Which is one of the main arguments as to why “robot weapons” should be implemented in their place.

Over the recent decades, artificial intelligence is being implemented into weapons. This autonomy means that the weapons can initiate actions without the intervention of a human. This allows for a wide range of functions in weapons including searching for and identifying potential targets, tracking targets, cueing them to human operators, timing when to fire, and homing in on targets once launched. Consequently, this increase of autonomy in weapons raises the question of how much human involvement should be required in lethal attacks. Some have called for “meaningful human control” over the attacks. Others have suggested a standard of “appropriate human judgment.” Regardless of the terms used, many agree that humans should be involved in lethal

In regards to Autonomous vehicles, individual controllers contain very little information in regards to how the operation is successive or else how the vehicle is executing (Riza, 2014). Whereas autonomous vehicles could be employed to offer bomb damage appraisal more like similar manner as arms that are directed with electro-optical feelers, the latest status of technology does not allow the current age bracket of autonomous vehicles to offer this information. Another risk is that the drones might be vulnerable to ambiguities or else uncomplicated programming errors that create it to assault friendly forces as well as source collateral damage in places that enclose civilian noncombatants (Kirkpatrick, 2015). A wider disadvantage with merely autonomous vehicles is that computers cannot make decisions without the supervision of human beings.

attempts to justify criminalization indirectly and provide a prima facie in doing so. Under this framework, Danaher now has a direct and legal justification to criminalize robotic rape and sexual abuse under the articles of both international and domestic law. Another discussion that has been stagnated by the degree of moral status AI should have is the discussion of autonomous vehicles. If AI have the moral status provided to them under this framework, then the responsibility gap when an accident occurs as mentioned by Hevelke and Nida-Rümelin could easily be filled by the AI, as they would be (foreign) workers and thus accountable for their actions. The filling of the responsibility gap is even applicable to warfare, if AI were used as autonomous

Autonomous military killer robots act on their own, they do not have a human driver, instead they are programed to act in certain ways in specific situations. The reasons why I think that military autonomous robots should be banned worldwide is because they could be hacked, misinterpret civilians for enemies, and make lethal mistakes.

The following critical step that gives a defining moment in the historical backdrop of military robots was in 1930-ties in the Soviet Union. Soviet Union made a remote controlled tank called as 'teletank'. Later on the tank's control framework was altered and to control the tank electric transfers and radio signs were utilized. Contingent upon climate and different conditions teletank could be controlled from 500-1500m away. The teletanks were furnished with DT automatic rifles, flamethrowers and smoke holder to give a smokescreen.

Today, the U.S military may be grappling with a comparative test. In the bureaucratic squint of an eye, its turned into an overwhelming power in the conceivably diversion changing field of military mechanical autonomy. The point when the U.S military went into Iraq in 2003, it utilized just a handful of unmanned frameworks circulating everywhere, none of them outfitted. On the ground, the attack energy utilized zero unmanned ground vehicles. Today, we have over 7000 unmanned flying frameworks in our stock 48-foot-long Predators, micro-airborne vehicles that a solitary officer can convey in his rucksack, and additionally lawnmower-size Packbots on the ground and Talons that help discover and defuse lethal roadside shells.

The concept of robots in our military is not so foreign. We currently have a variety of types including drone planes and bomb detecting robots. There are several reasons why robots of these types are a benefit to the soldiers on the ground in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. These innovations keep our fighting force away from many dangerous events. However, the military seems to be leaning toward a world where the infantry will be totally comprised of machines-an “unsympathetic” robot killing force. The argument is that these robots will have no hesitation to kill, making the human soldier obsolete. These robots also require no training or housing. Even though robots will kill without question and cost less overall, robots will not benefit war times because they take away our military’s heart and soul, they eliminate the humanitarian effort, and their programming can be unpredictable.

As bloody wars drag on in Iraq and Afghanistan the United States military increasingly turns to human-less warriors to stem the loss of lives. The MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper aerial drones are seeing an increase in use, while remote controlled robots are being used to dispose of improvised explosive devises. At what point do these computer systems move from machines capable of unethical actions, to machines whose very existence is unethical? I argue that fully automated systems should not be used in an offensive manner; rather they can only see ethical uses in limited defensive roles. In exploring this question I will draw on the only fully autonomous US armed forces weapon system I am aware of, the Phalanx CIWS, a missile defense system

In fact, weapons platforms already have the ability to fire autonomously, and the results have not always been positive. Boeing has developed an unmanned air combat system that currently has the ability to fly autonomously and carries a payload of smart bombs (Boeing, 2009). Major efforts also are being utilized to enabling robots to learn from experience, raising the question of whether we can predict with reasonable certainty what the robot will learn. Robots are also being deployed in the medical field. The speed, diligence, efficiency and precision that robots can achieve make them very useful tools for surgery.