Search: battlefield robots

...and the ICC and others in the field of Int'l law) hold onto traditional notions of what constitutes a battlefield -- al-Qaeda (and this is well documented by Lawrence Wright in The Looming Tower and dozens of other sources) and other related Islamist groups see everywhere as the battlefield. The killing zone is deep and wide and infinite. The frontlines are everywhere. I wish it were not so -- however wishes don't keep people alive -- or capture or kill terrorists. With all due respect Prof. Ku -- we do...

...detainees who were released before the tribunal process began). How are we supposed to take these clowns seriously? Returning to the Battlefield in “Dozens”…How About Some Proof? Finally, what about the contention being bandied about Washington, assumed as truthful by Kontorovich, that at least 30 released detainees have “returning to the battlefield?” To date, the Administration has claimed 30, but has only provided the names of six men. In the spring, the DoD released specific ISN numbers pairing these men with former GTMO prisoners, and detainee lawyers quickly identified problems...

...that be the case? Well, as Brennan elaborates, even those allies who would deny the expanded scope of the armed conflict beyond “hot battlefields” agree with the U.S. that a nation may use force in self-defense against an entity or state that is “planning, engaging in, or threatening an armed attack against U.S. interests,” even outside of the “hot battlefield,” if the threat of such action is “imminent.” (Again, such self-defense actions must comply with sovereignty and other international norms, such as the requirement that the response be necessary and...

...of radar or infrared imagery, etc.) or that robots can take more risks (as if remotely operated robots can't do the same). As to the last point, it is often argued that communications links are vulnerable, but this applies mainly in the case of state-vs.-state warfare, and especially aggressive or preemptive war, where robots might be used for strategic attack. Mr. Blanchard does acknowledge the existence of "concerns about strategic stability," but then quickly sidelines them with the assertion that this is not what "the debate here" is about. I...

HowardGilbert The core definition of "enemy combatant" has nothing to do with battlefields. The term starts with the various groups designate by Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention, and before it the Hague Agreements. First, you have all members of the regular armed forces of an enemy country. This includes cooks, truck drivers, doctors, engineers, generals, and lots of other people far from battlefields who have never engaged in combat. In the West, we refer to these people as "men and women in uniform," but uniforms are a Western...

...the public’s concern about futuristic robots feeding on the human population, but that is not our mission,” stated Harry Schoell, Cyclone’s CEO. “We are focused on demonstrating that our engines can create usable, green power from plentiful, renewable plant matter. The commercial applications alone for this earth-friendly energy solution are enormous.” (emphasis in the original) I’m going out on a limb — a non-human one, of course — and claiming that this is the first time Article 15 has ever been mentioned in a press release about robots. Bonus IHL...

been hypothesized. I had previously referred to such robots using William Gibson’s term “slamhounds.” According to Danger Room, DARPA is now working to develop quadruped hunter robots, but is going for a different animal metaphor, calling the project “Cheetah.” Boston Dynamics, the developer of BigDog/ AphaDog, is running the Cheetah project. Adam Rawnsley of Danger Room writes: As the name implies, Cheetah is designed to be a four-legged robot with a flexible spine and articulated head (and potentially a tail) that runs faster than the fastest human. In addition to...

...war anymore? An end-run around the P-5? Neglecting the UN? I want to thank EJIL editor and old friend Joe Weiler for commissioning this essay – and then running it when it turned out to be a somewhat strange piece for EJIL. It draws on my personal experience regarding the early days of the then-proposed ICTY, among other things. Everything from battlefield robots to the P-5 … no lack of topics here in a short space. Although I think it will drive some readers crazy, and for a good reason...

...the capabilities of [a] new technology to be able to formulate rules that maximize the advantages to be derived from it while minimizing the dangers it is assessed as posing…” (p.16)  Boothby gets to the heart of the issue—do we know what we have wrought?  But also: do we know how all that these things that we have wrought affect each other? Consider how advances in autonomy can affect not only battlefield robots but also complex cyber-intrusion programs, robotic surgery, self-driving cars, uncrewed aerial vehicles, and space activities.   By...

...nature I’m intrigued by the idea that the social world can be modeled by reference to discount rates and net present value and capital budgeting for the private firm. Not entirely convinced, possibly because I am a finance professor, but … intrigued. Autonomous battlefield robots. Or as I like to refer to them, because no editor can resist this … Ethics for Robot Soldiers. This speaks for itself. Just war theory and laws of war. I’m active and interested in matters of just war theory and the ethics of war...

...last, there are still major questions about what form that conflict would take. Could we possibly see a return to massive armies hurtling themselves at each other on defined battlefields? I’d be willing to engage suggestions to that effect, but it seems intuitively unlikely against the backdrop not just of nuclear weapons but also of the battlefield robots that all Ken Anderson fans will be familiar with. (Nor would it look like the asymmetric warfare we saw during Cold War sideshows and now in Iraq and Afghanistan.) So what’s the...

filings that our modern society seems to encourage. The repeated reference to "non-battlefield" capture seems confused. There has never been any distinction in the Laws of War based on battlefields. During WWII Ireland was neutral. German and British airmen who crashed in Ireland during the war were interned for the duration of the war, although there was no battlefield. Consider the Graf Spee. While it was attacking allied shipping in the Atlantic, it captured and held as prisoners the non-combatant crewmen of British merchant ships because the laws of war...