Autonomous weapons
systems (AWS) are armaments that are designed to make judgments without the
constant input of their programmers.
Navigation, target selection, and when to attack opposing
fighters are just a few of the decisions that must be made.
Because of the imminence of this technology, numerous
ethical questions and arguments have arisen regarding whether it should be
developed and how it should be utilized.
The technology's seeming inevitability prompted Human Rights
Watch to launch a campaign in 2013 called "Stop Killer Robots," which
pushes for universal bans on their usage.
This movement continues to exist now.
Other academics and military strategists point to AWS'
strategic and resource advantages as reasons for continuing to develop and use
them.
A discussion of whether it is desirable or feasible to
construct an international agreement on their development and/or usage is
central to this argument.
Those who advocate for further technological advancement in
these areas focus on the advantages that a military power can gain from using
AWS.
These technologies have the potential to reduce collateral
damage, battle casualties, the capacity to minimize needless risk, more
efficient military operations, reduced psychological harm to troops from war,
and armies with declining human numbers.
In other words, they concentrate on the advantages of the
weapon to the military that will use it.
The essential assumption in these discussions is that the
military's aims are morally worthwhile in and of themselves.
AWS may result in less civilian deaths since the systems can
make judgments faster than humans; however, this is not always the case with
technology, as the decision-making procedures of AWS may result in higher
civilian fatalities rather than the opposite.
However, if they can avoid civilian fatalities and property
damage more effectively than conventional fighting, they are more efficient and
hence preferable.
In times of conflict, they might also improve efficiency by
minimizing resource waste.
Transportation of people and the resources required to keep
them alive is a time-consuming and challenging part of battle.
AWS provides a solution to complex logistical issues.
Drones and other autonomous systems don't need rain gear,
food, drink, or medical attention, making them less cumbersome and perhaps more
successful in completing their objectives.
AWS are considered as eliminating waste and offering the
best possible outcome in a combat situation in these and other ways.
The employment of AWS in military operations is inextricably
linked to Just War Theory.
Just War Theory examines whether it is morally acceptable or
essential for a military force to engage in war, as well as what activities are
ethically justifiable during wartime.
If an autonomous system may be used in a military strike, it
can only be done if the attack is justifiable in the first place.
According to this viewpoint, the manner in which one is
murdered is less essential than the reason for one's death.
Those who believe AWS is unethical concentrate on the
hazards that such technology entails.
These scenarios include scenarios in which enemy combatants
obtain weaponry and use it against the military power that deploys it, as well
as scenarios in which there is increased (and uncontrollable) collateral
damage, reduced retaliation capability (against enemy combatant aggressors),
and loss of human dignity.
One key concern is whether being murdered by a computer
without a person as the final decision-maker is consistent with human dignity.
There appears to be something demeaning about being murdered
by an AWS that has had minimal human interaction.
Another key worry is the risk aspect, which includes the
danger to the user of the technology that if the AWS is taken down (either
because to a malfunction or an enemy assault), it will be seized and used
against the owner.
Those who oppose the use of AWS are likewise concerned about
the concept of just war.
The targeting of civilians by military agents is expressly
prohibited under Just War Theory; the only lawful military targets are other
military bases or personnel.
However, the introduction of autonomous weapons may imply
that a state, particularly one without access to AWS, may be unable to react to
military attacks launched by AWS.
In a scenario where one side has access to AWS but the other
does not, the side without the weapons will inevitably be without a legal
military target, forcing them to either target nonmilitary (civilian) targets
or not react at all.
Neither alternative is feasible in terms of ethics or
practicality.
Because automated weaponry is widely assumed to be on the
horizon, another ethical consideration is how to regulate its use.
Because of the United States' extensive use of remote
control drones in the Middle East, this debate has gotten a lot of attention.
Some advocate for a worldwide ban on the technology;
although this is often seen as foolish and hence impractical, these advocates
frequently point to the UN's restriction against blinding lasers, which has
been ratified by 108 countries.
Others want to create an international convention that
controls the proper use of these technologies, with consequences and
punishments for nations that break these standards, rather than a full
prohibition.
There is currently no such agreement, and each state must
decide how to govern the usage of these technologies on its own.
~ Jai Krishna Ponnappan
You may also want to read more about Artificial Intelligence here.
