 |
| "Wounded Soldier" (1914) by Marc Chagall |
Is reduced loss of American military lives a strong enough reason to push for less human engagement in warfare?
What are the potential unintended consequences of increasing military automation?
Does automation create a new moral dilemma for the military?
The reduced loss of American military would be a good enough reason to put more technology into warfare, but it could create serious consequences. Countries would definitely be more likely to go to war with technology instead of people. It's much easier to push a button than to coordinate soldiers and form an attack. This could result in much more innocent lives lost if the technology was on a nuclear level. Technology could be more destructive than soldiers. Automation does create a new moral dilemma for the military because it would totally change the process of war. War with machines and war with soldiers require different decisions.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Brayden's points. It is almost certain that war will be more common if we use machines instead of soldiers. This has been shown in social media. People are far more likely to attack others if they can distant themselves or feel that they are safe behind technology. Only in the case of war, it will have far more devastating results.
DeleteI don't think the use of automation would change the process of war, I think it would defeat the purpose of war.
DeleteIsn't the point of warfare to strong-arm your opponent into submission by causing as much damage as possible to their people and resources? Wouldn't fighting robots with robots render conflict meaningless?
I agree with you, Brayden, completely. To just click a button is a lot simpler than to coordinate soldiers and war strategies. As the child of military members I have seen firsthand how long it takes to train and get soldiers together for war. But I have also felt the strain and worry that comes when a loved one goes overseas to war. I would love if we didn’t have to feel that pain anymore, but not if that meant that war would become a normal thing in our society. Also, if we look at fights in school you can already see how technology affects arguments, more debates and “battles” happen online than in person nowadays.
DeleteAny reduction of human life should in itself be noted as a worthy cause. Automating war is a different animal though. There's always a side that isn't up to par. A teeter-totter comes to mind. A reduced casualty count on one side would more than likely increase the count on the other. The "us vs. them" arms race always happens. Human lives shouldn't work that way. The predator drone has been making unmanned flights while still under the control of a human. There's been quite a number of civilian casualties with its strikes. I think robots make it too easy to pull the trigger. War shouldn't be the answer over diplomacy, and I think robots are a cop out.
ReplyDeleteThe introduction of more automated warfare would be a great substitute for american soldiers. Although there is a lot to benefit from this there are downsides. If an automated robot soldier went into battle and started taking out enemies but then had a misfire and blew up a civilian building who would take them blame? Many new ethical dilemmas and moral dilemmas would be impossible for generals to make decisions. As Carr said it would create an arms race for the best and most powerful LAR’s. The alternative of still using american soldiers on the front line would still be worth that cost. All of the family’s that have their sons and daughters go off to war can feel better knowing their child is safe.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI see how having automated warfare would be more beneficial to a country, so that it doesn't lose any more people, but if a mistake where to happen, who would have to be responsible for it? Would it be the country as a whole, the makers of the machinery, or the person controlling the machine that has to pay for it?
ReplyDeleteI also agree with those who commented above me saying how it would make war easier and more common. Look at the way we use technology to cyberbully. Most people believe that with technology, you could post it anonymously, and hurt anyone in the world with no consequences. Just a few clicks on a keyboard and done. I would no longer have to think about the words I said, or see the reaction of the people who read them. The same thing could be said with using automated warfare. If I were to hold up a gun to someone, I could see multiple reactions and depending on those reactions make a decision to shoot. If I were to use a machine to shoot someone, I wouldn’t have to accept the same responsibility. I could just blame it on the technology, rather than actually admitting that I had shot someone. Also, like any other machinery, who says this one wouldn’t be unable to hack into and then used for someone else’s gain?
Anything that prevents the deployment of troops to handle a conflict is something that should be invested in, but to a certain extent. The automation of military may perhaps lead us to misunderstand the severity of conflict. IN conflict, several moral decision must be made. With an automated military, we may be more prone to enter armed conflict without considering all possible solutions. It would be an easier decision to send automated systems into combat without having to consider the loss of human life as a possibility. Because of this, automated armed conflict may be something that would be more prevalent in the course of an automated military.
ReplyDelete