Search: battlefield robots

...…[the show] reduced humanity to its essentials’. This is evident in the show’s premise. BSG focuses on the 50,000 human survivors of a surprise genocide launched by intelligent robots, known as Cylons. These remaining humans are protected by a military ship, the eponymous Battlestar Galactica. The Moore/Eick reboot began with a mini-series which aired in 2003 and depicted the Cylon attack and humanity’s initial responses to it. Season One of BSG focuses on the flight of the civilian fleet, protected by the Galactica, from Cylon pursuit (who are intent on...

...White House site, which I haven’t included). It is more substantive than one might have anticipated – it discusses private space flight initiatives, the International Space Station and – naturally! – robots. Update: Response from the Air Force General Counsel’s Twitter feed (and I recommend both the Twitter feed (@AirForceGC) and blog: Air Force GC ‏@ AirForceGC Still smarting from Death Star decision, but must admit weapons review would have been a bear. Referring to US legal requirements for a review of the legality of all weapons systems, meeting the...

...policeman bides his time, and then, as she draws closer to him, he whispers to his dead wife—murdered by the occupiers—that he’ll see her soon. His thumb presses the detonator, and the ceremony is ripped apart, along with a sense of security and optimism for the occupying power. If this sounds like Iraq, it should. But it’s the season premiere of Battlestar: Galactica, the Sci Fi Channel’s acclaimed remake of the kitschy Star Trek also-ran. In its previous two seasons, Battlestar has hinted at war-on-terrorism overtones. The evil Cylon robots...

...stronger in recent times is provided by artificial intelligence and lethal autonomous weapons systems. Many argue that, by removing human emotions such as anger or fear, killer robots seem to be more ready to engage in hostilities without the possibility of making mistakes. The absence of any emotional experience would allow, according to this position, for an unbiased participation in hostilities. But this, of course, is not clear, since the absence of combatant decision-making ends up de-humanising the conduct of hostilities and reducing war to a cold and inexpressive algorithm....

...in stride. Why the change? The Olympics used to be a form of surrogate warfare. If we couldn’t beat the Soviets on the battlefield, we could best them in the rink. Athletes were soldiers, of a sort. As such, their nationality was serious stuff. For the most part states don’t stand in an adversarial posture any more. Their teams may, but more now in the way of the Phillies and the Mets, competitive but a healthy way. This should be counted as another welcome departure from the pathologies of Westphalia....

...ever change it will fundamentally alter how IHL regulates the use of such weapons. But we are a long way from having “untethered” drones loosed on the battlefield and I have found no appetite for such a development amongst operational military commanders. However this “stupidity” does not change the fact that, as a weapons system, drones are capable of more accurately discriminating between civilians and legitimately targetable individuals than any other weapons system we currently possess. This is because drones allow for a dispassionate assessment of each weapon employment by...

...released on Friday. Colombia pledged on Sunday to de-escalate military action against leftist guerrillas if the rebels uphold their unilateral ceasefire, providing a breakthrough in peace talks that had been threatened by an escalation of battlefield violence. U.S.-led forces conducted 16 air strikes in Syria and 11 more in Iraq against Islamic State forces on Saturday, the Combined Joint Task Force leading the air operations said on Sunday. UN/World The United Nations said it expects an unconditional week-long humanitarian pause in the fighting in Yemen to start on Friday to...

...For racialised and gendered scholars, the emotional labour in simply being, let alone belonging, is punishing.  On the battlefield, we need allies, creativity, resilience, and, perhaps most of all, we need victories. This symposium is a victory. It was hard fought, with various intervening factors delaying its release and altering its appearance. I tip my hat to those who spoke and do not judge those who did not. I also acknowledge those who, out of fear of reprisals, withdrew their submissions at later stages. There is neither harm nor disappointment....

...now have more combat experience than any Marines in the history of our Corps…. Biggest Hassle — High-ranking visitors. More disruptive to work than a rocket attack. VIPs demand briefs and “battlefield” tours (we take them to quiet sections of Fallujah, which is plenty scary for them). Our briefs and commentary seem to have no effect on their preconceived notions of what’s going on in Iraq. Their trips allow them to say that they’ve been to Fallujah, which gives them an unfortunate degree of credibility in perpetuating their fantasies about...

...trial. Question is on what basis in an environment that claims to act under the “charge them or let them go.” One is simply to say, well, it’s down to less than twenty, so that’s pretty darn good! Another rationale on which to hold people, not inconsistent with the earlier one, is to say, well, we are in this situation because the Bush administration tortured people, messed up the evidence, didn’t collect it properly on the battlefield, etc. – but we have to hold them because of the security risk....

[Chanel Chauvet earned her Master of Laws in International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights from the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. She also holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Georgia School of Law. This is a post in our joint blog symposium with ICRC’s Humanitarian Law & Policy Blog exploring the new ICRC Commentary on the Third Geneva Convention ( GCIII Commentary ).] This post will explore the challenges of armed conflict that extend beyond the battlefield and into detention camps for many prisoners...

...an IHL scholar to see the problems with that argument. IHL applies only if conflict is sufficiently intense and organized to qualify as a NIAC. Period. There is no “weak domestic law” exception to that fundamental requirement. And even if a NIAC exists, IHL applies to individuals located outside the battlefield only if they are members of an organization involved in that NIAC or are directly participating in hostilities there. The real question, in short, is whether individuals in the U.S. accused solely of materially supporting terrorism can be considered...