computer can ascertain a positive combat identification of ground targets—assuming that the data being gathered is geo-registered. Once the computer can determine a positive identification—either a manned or unmanned aircraft—can engage a target. But at the end of the day, the computer is still making the determination that a contact is hostile. And there have been systems in the past such as the Northrop AGM-136 Tacit rainbow anti radiation cruise missile that was canceled in 1991. A later example is the Lockheed Martin Low-Cost Autonomous Attack System. The now-defunct miniature loitering cruise missile demonstrator was guided by GPS/INS to a target box. It would then use laser radar to illuminate targets and match them with pre-loaded signatures.
…show more content…
McCurley he stated in his article “War is chaos, and mistakes do happen. But in my 11 years flying the Predator, I was satisfied to see how few actually did. While the “drone papers” would have you believe otherwise, drone pilots are subject to the exact same rigorous checks and balances used for all military operations—and then some. (After all, is there a difference between bombs dropped off a drone or a fighter?) And when we make a gross error, we also risk going to jail.”
Now with autonomous drones, once a computer is given a certain set of parameters for example a series of rules of engagement, it will follow those instructions precisely. If the autonomous weapon is designed and built to operate within the laws of war, then there should be no objection to their use. Under Article 36 of the 1977 Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, weapons cannot be inherently indiscriminate and are prohibited from causing unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury. (Majumdar). Setting rules and guidelines for the aircraft would prevent human error of miss targeting and even if it did have an error it could be corrected through programing. Recent debates over drones have raised similar questions. A drone operator is just as accountable as a pilot in an airplane or a tank driver for their actions — and numerous sources suggest drone pilots do not exhibit moral detachment from war. The concern is that autonomous weapons could lead to a situation where people no longer feel morally responsible for the use of force.
McCurley he stated in his article “War is chaos, and mistakes do happen. But in my 11 years flying the Predator, I was satisfied to see how few actually did. While the “drone papers” would have you believe otherwise, drone pilots are subject to the exact same rigorous checks and balances used for all military operations—and then some. (After all, is there a difference between bombs dropped off a drone or a fighter?) And when we make a gross error, we also risk going to jail.”
Now with autonomous drones, once a computer is given a certain set of parameters for example a series of rules of engagement, it will follow those instructions precisely. If the autonomous weapon is designed and built to operate within the laws of war, then there should be no objection to their use. Under Article 36 of the 1977 Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, weapons cannot be inherently indiscriminate and are prohibited from causing unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury. (Majumdar). Setting rules and guidelines for the aircraft would prevent human error of miss targeting and even if it did have an error it could be corrected through programing. Recent debates over drones have raised similar questions. A drone operator is just as accountable as a pilot in an airplane or a tank driver for their actions — and numerous sources suggest drone pilots do not exhibit moral detachment from war. The concern is that autonomous weapons could lead to a situation where people no longer feel morally responsible for the use of force.