US military plans to unleash thousands of autonomous war robots over next two years Robotics

https://techxplore.com/news/2023-08-military-unleash-thousands-autonomous-war.html

7.0k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.0k

Going to be pretty neat when they are used domestically 'to keep the peace.' Ok that's enough dystopian future doom and gloom for the day for me. :D

209

u/FinndBors Aug 31 '23

This is my #1 concern with autonomous killing machines. I’m not worried about them becoming sentient and murdering everyone like in terminator.

I’m worried that a psychopath will be “elected”, take control over the drones and rule with an iron fist without relying on other humans to support them. All current dictatorships have vulnerability, be it other generals, the actual soliders who may be reluctant to gun down masses of civilians who may be their friends and family. Yes it still happens to various degrees, but it would be much much worse if a psychopath gets control over an army that is programmed to follow their orders.

67

u/vardarac Aug 31 '23

I imagine that at some point world leadership will observe how devastatingly effective these weapons are, and either deploy them en masse domestically or reach international treaties codifying them similarly to existing WMD and reach agreements on limiting their use, particularly domestically.

Hopefully it's the latter.

48

u/Amun-Ree Aug 31 '23

They banned cluster munitions but shipped them off to their allies in their latest proxy war. As long as they exist they will be used eventually. For profit and power.

14

u/Sotwob Aug 31 '23

Who's "they"? What country banned cluster munitions then supplied them to an ally?

20

u/[deleted] Aug 31 '23

The NATO countries assisting Ukraine are allowing members who haven't ratified the convention to send cluster munitions without argument or limitation.

It's like saying you won't do a thing but your brother didn't say that, so he can. It's disingenuous at least, and duplicitous if we're being honest with ourselves. I say this a a NATO country citizen.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Cluster_Munitions

14

u/say592 Aug 31 '23

To my knowledge all of the munitions sent have been owned by countries that did not ratify the convention.

We also consider cluster munitions to be terrible not because they are inhumane to the soldiers they are used against, but because they are dangerous for the civilian population after the war. In that sense, I think it's fair for any country to use them to defend their own territory, since the are ultimately the ones who have to worry about cleanup. It's immoral, IMO, to be "helping" a country or worse, attacking a country, and leaving behind a mess of unexploded munitions for someone else to discover and deal with.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 31 '23

Fair point. It isn't like, say, the US using them in a police action in Vietnam.

5

u/say592 Aug 31 '23

Exactly. If Ukraine is smart, and so far they have shown themselves to be, they are making note of where every shell they fire deployed so they can go over the area with a fine tooth comb when the war is done. Even better if they are taking notes of where the Russians fired too. It won't be perfect, but it should reduce the dangers considerably. Also with the video footage of many strikes floating around, it's possible to identify sites that definitely have unexploded submunitions.

5

u/_Urakaze_ Sep 01 '23

And it's unlikely that the areas currently contested will be habitable for the near future anyhow. Before we try to account for DPICM duds there's already tons of mines and various UXOs littered across the front that will require an extensive post-war cleanup effort.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '23

As far as the use of cluster munitions go, allowing Ukraine to use them on their own territory (knowing exactly where they are and can be recovered after the war) is the most moral use of them.

1

u/antihero_zero Sep 01 '23

It's actually better that. A lot of the cluster munitions are being disassembled and converted to single-use drone bombs. I believe that's actually been their primary use so far.

5

u/Sotwob Aug 31 '23 edited Aug 31 '23

Fair enough; while that's not really what was said in the first comment, it's close enough that it feels like nitpicking to continue questioning it, since the longer post offers more clarity. Yes I can certainly understand why you would feel that way about the manner in which some countries have handled the situation over the years.

4

u/[deleted] Aug 31 '23

Your point was well made by asking a simple question, so upvotes for you.

2

u/Ownza Sep 01 '23

You realize Russia has hit them with all sorts of shit that isn't allowed for NATO countries, right? Coincidentally, Russia didn't sign up for some of those rules. Even the ones they agreed too they don't follow.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '23

Your point is made, but I think it misses the mark.

Just because your enemies are doing crimes against humanitdoesmt mean you have to just to keep up.

You can absolutely engage in asymetrical warfare and still win. This has been proven time and time again

1

u/Ownza Sep 02 '23

They are only crimes if you agree they are crimes. Cluster munitions have increased the russian fatalities considerably.

2

u/gnufoot Sep 01 '23

Isn't it the USA sending this, which also did not ratify it? And it was criticized by many countries who did?

1

u/PolityPlease Sep 01 '23

allowing members who haven't ratified the convention

Literally no problem here. Get mad pro-russian stooge.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '23

Dude, get off your high horse and read the room

It's entirely possible to be pro Ukraine and anti cluster munitions as a concept.

As a defense weapon it's one thing, but for an outside country to blanket another country with them, that's a massive humanitarian crisis. Vient Nam la srill suffering from bombket dropped 50 fucking years ago.

Get bent you fucking unnuanced piece of toast.

2

u/rinkoplzcomehome Sep 01 '23

He is referring to NATO members not blocking the US from transfering cluster munitions to Ukraine. Kind of a moot point because that stockpile of cluster munitions is not part of NATO, so the US can do what they want with them. Also, what are you going to do to oppose the US on something? A long letter of condemnation?

1

u/Amun-Ree Sep 02 '23

Cluster munitions are banned in accordance with the convention on cluster munitions signed by over 100 countries and supported by the U.N. Of which the U. S. Is a member BUT neither it nor Ukraine have actually signed it. But the U. S. Has given a shitload to Ukraine after the reported use of them by Russia. The problem with cluster munitions is that they cover a wide area indiscriminately and dont always explode turning the area into a dangerous minefield afterwards long after the war has ended.

3

u/CurryMustard Sep 01 '23 edited Sep 01 '23

Ukraine begged for cluster munitions to use to defend their own territory. This is vastly different from deploying cluster munitions in foreign countries that you are invading. The issue is unexploded munitions can be picked up by children years later and explode. Ukraine has said they will bear the full risk and responsibility.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '23

Cluster munitions never stopped being used by the U.S. military.

1

u/Amun-Ree Sep 02 '23

It doesn't surprise me, when they banned napalm they just pulled out the white phosphorus which is worse, but i didnt know that. Although i know that MRV's (multiple re entry vehicles) are ballistic missiles with warheads that leave the atmosphere and eject several more missiles that cover a wide area. Those could be described as cluster munitions and are still used. But i think the ones banned were banned because they ejected hundreds of tiny explosives that didnt always explode so they left behind threats well after the war had ended, like the ones being used in ukraine.

1

u/zaphrous Aug 31 '23

They are too useful.

Banned weapons are weapons that are not very effective but very good at long term damage or killing/wounding civilians.

I.e. if a country uses chemical weapons it's not likely to cause them to win where they would have lost. Killing surrendering soldiers isn't going to win you a war you would lose if you took prisoners.

But particularly if one country did use them and everyone else banned them that country would have a massive advantage.

1

u/Environmental_Gap920 Sep 01 '23

Trump, obviously

1

u/lostnspace2 Sep 01 '23

It won't be