I would suggest the use of autonomous weapon systems in combat is less a change in policy and more a reflection of the technology having developed to a point where this is now a marketable product. I looked for any statements of policy regarding the use of autonomous weapons systems and could not find them. The article in GOOD did not having any references to the documents outlining the proposed change in policy regarding the use of autonomous weapon systems.
I did find an interesting presentation which included a slide on what makes a weapon system legal for use.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006disruptive_tech/canning.pdf
Discussions on the possibilties of using autonomous weapon systems can be found prior to 9/11. Here is a link to a pdf from 1998 outlining how changes in technology used for sensors and communications, along with robotics, opens up a number of new development opportunities.
http://rand.org/pubs/documented_briefings/DB239/DB239.pdf
The fairly recent development of having such detailed information on the daily actions of our military half a world away is acting as a spotlight on the field of robotics. I think the article in GOOD is more a reflection of the author being caught by surprise in how far robotics has developed than an indication of a policy change in our government. When you are not impersed in an area of study it is easy to be caught unawares by twenty or thirty years of continual development.
These autonomous weapon systems are the obvious next steps in weapon development and, yes, there are some disturbing implications in our governments potential use of them but the indiviual robotic projects represent such a small porttion of the overall development in robotics I am not concerned about a wave of killer robots any time soon. Sensational articles like the one in GOOD are more likely to keep people from interacting with the different robotic products under development, even when they might do some good.
I would suggest the use of
I would suggest the use of autonomous weapon systems in combat is less a change in policy and more a reflection of the technology having developed to a point where this is now a marketable product. I looked for any statements of policy regarding the use of autonomous weapons systems and could not find them. The article in GOOD did not having any references to the documents outlining the proposed change in policy regarding the use of autonomous weapon systems.
I did find an interesting presentation which included a slide on what makes a weapon system legal for use.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006disruptive_tech/canning.pdf
Discussions on the possibilties of using autonomous weapon systems can be found prior to 9/11. Here is a link to a pdf from 1998 outlining how changes in technology used for sensors and communications, along with robotics, opens up a number of new development opportunities.
http://rand.org/pubs/documented_briefings/DB239/DB239.pdf
The fairly recent development of having such detailed information on the daily actions of our military half a world away is acting as a spotlight on the field of robotics. I think the article in GOOD is more a reflection of the author being caught by surprise in how far robotics has developed than an indication of a policy change in our government. When you are not impersed in an area of study it is easy to be caught unawares by twenty or thirty years of continual development.
These autonomous weapon systems are the obvious next steps in weapon development and, yes, there are some disturbing implications in our governments potential use of them but the indiviual robotic projects represent such a small porttion of the overall development in robotics I am not concerned about a wave of killer robots any time soon. Sensational articles like the one in GOOD are more likely to keep people from interacting with the different robotic products under development, even when they might do some good.