Comment Asimovs laws and unstable strategic points (Score 1) 373
I have to say, as a worker in the analytical community, the attached presentation is one of the worst I've seen for a while. In addition to the fatuous (or a least completely unproven) assertions about the effects of "excessive" destruction in war, the presentaton is a good example of what I call the "tyranny of the present"; a worldview utterly focused on current operations and topical concerns as to render the "insights" worthless. But aside from the limited worldview, the 2x2 targetting taxonomy has no dimensional consistency, makes no sense, and is a good example of why "analysts" should be taught class theory before being let loose with powerpoint. A lesson in anecdotal sampling bias in the use of historical cases might also help.
Enough sniping; on to the meat of the article. And the most obvious flaw already pointed out is that nigh-all combat platforms are combination of weapon, man, and (often) motive vehicle. So, the robot could cheerfully waste a tank as a "thing", with the crew as acceptable collateral damage. As a legal manoeuvre, this might have some merit, but I don't think it satisfies as a philosophical sucessor to Asimov. [I leave aside the article asking us to believe that non-lethal weapons will persuade the enemy to abandon their fighting platforms so they can be clinically destroyed by the robot. Nice. I have to put up with a lot of silly techno-utopianism with the American way of war but this makes me wonder if the author has slept through every conflict since ALLIED FORCE.]
Amusingly though, on the most restrictive reading of the rules, the US robts will be sat on the battlefield waiting for other robots to be fielded by the enemy so that they can shoot them. I'm reminded of the Onion article where the US pledges $600m to the Taliban to build a C4I complex so that they can bomb it. In practise , of course, it matters not what rules the US and its allies adopt in the short term. The temptation for a challenger power to adopt a universal targetting ROE for _their_ robots would be immense. Faced with such a challenge, I suspect US robots would have to follow suit, at risk of ceding a massive advantage on the battlefield. [This is already the case with the argument for arming UAV's for air-to-air engagement. Fear of what enemy UAVs so prepared might potentially do is already influencing doctrine development; without one real theat in the sky].
Enough sniping; on to the meat of the article. And the most obvious flaw already pointed out is that nigh-all combat platforms are combination of weapon, man, and (often) motive vehicle. So, the robot could cheerfully waste a tank as a "thing", with the crew as acceptable collateral damage. As a legal manoeuvre, this might have some merit, but I don't think it satisfies as a philosophical sucessor to Asimov. [I leave aside the article asking us to believe that non-lethal weapons will persuade the enemy to abandon their fighting platforms so they can be clinically destroyed by the robot. Nice. I have to put up with a lot of silly techno-utopianism with the American way of war but this makes me wonder if the author has slept through every conflict since ALLIED FORCE.]
Amusingly though, on the most restrictive reading of the rules, the US robts will be sat on the battlefield waiting for other robots to be fielded by the enemy so that they can shoot them. I'm reminded of the Onion article where the US pledges $600m to the Taliban to build a C4I complex so that they can bomb it. In practise , of course, it matters not what rules the US and its allies adopt in the short term. The temptation for a challenger power to adopt a universal targetting ROE for _their_ robots would be immense. Faced with such a challenge, I suspect US robots would have to follow suit, at risk of ceding a massive advantage on the battlefield. [This is already the case with the argument for arming UAV's for air-to-air engagement. Fear of what enemy UAVs so prepared might potentially do is already influencing doctrine development; without one real theat in the sky].
As with warfare through the ages, technological possibility will shape strategy, with challengers being first adopters (the current RMA is a bit unusual in this). And after a while, I think people will find that the law follows too... there's this old chestnut about crossbows and knights...
