hanging y a thread — our onnection to war y me6 alvin seah ...€¦ · soldiers will shift our...
Post on 26-Jan-2021
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
Hanging By A Thread — Our Connection To
War
By ME6 Calvin Seah Ser Thong
November 2020
-
Hanging By A Thread — Our Connection To War
2
HANGING BY A THREAD — OUR
CONNECTION TO WAR By ME6 Calvin Seah Ser Thong
ABSTRACT
According to the author, autonomous technology is increasingly adopted by the various military forces around the
world. In fact, there is a wide proliferation of robots which are being used to replace humans for many tasks, even
in the battlefield. However, the author feels that the adoption of autonomous technology creates a distinct
distance between the ‘operator’ and his targets and has moral implications. In his essay, the author first highlights
the trends in war. He then details the advent of autonomous technologies. He further adds that there is a role and
place for both autonomous and manned systems in the future battlefield. He feels that the key is to strike a balance
and be able to get the best out of each. While an autonomous system might be able keep a human out of harm's
way, there is a possibility that using an autonomous system can blind us to war and the real destruction it brings.
The main drawback of using autonomous systems is that it may become easy to wage wars, thereby treading into
moral and ethical issues. The author concludes however that it is the human element that is still crucial in the final
outcome between autonomous and manned systems.
Keywords: Autonomous, Swarming, Ethical, Exploitation, Psychological
INTRODUCTION
From the confines of his windowless box, he
focused his camera onto three suspected insurgents
walking down a road in Afghanistan. He was told that
they had rifles, but for all he knew, they could be
shepherds with their staffs. However, the instruction
from his chain of command was clear. His targeting laser
locked on—three … two … one—and his Hellfire flared
to life. This was his second kill of the night. As time
passed, he realised that his job had made him numb.
Once he donned his flight suit, he slipped into ‘zombie
mode’. This was recounted by former United States Air
Force (USAF) drone operator Airman First Class Brandon
Bryant, to GQ in the article, ‘Confessions of a Drone
Warrior.’2 He describes efforts by drone crews to help
US troops avoid harm and of atrocities he saw
committed by militants. He remains haunted by the
horror of killing people thousands of miles away as he
sat safely tugged in a bunker, but he is just one of many
who have experienced this common scenario in the age
of autonomous technology.3 In recent times, this very
image of Drone Warriors tucked safely in their bunkers
miles away from the theatre has become a symbol of
distance in warfare.4 Even so, the US Department of
Defense (DoD) has repeatedly insisted that using drones
prevents the deaths of soldiers and protects the nation
from terror threats.5
It has been reported that robots are increasingly
moving from the gear shop into the field. Predictions in
the shipments of military robots show a continual
increase as shown in Figure 1. In fact, autonomous
technology is keenly pursued by militaries and we now
bear witness to robots that are developed purely for
military purposes.6 With its wide proliferation and utility
to replace humans for many tasks, autonomous
technology has been regarded as the holy grail for
militaries7. However, as highlighted earlier, their use
creates a distinct distance between the ‘operator’ and
his targets and strike a fine line between morality or
otherwise. International diplomats have therefore
continued to meet to discuss on regulating autonomous
military weapons under international humanitarian
laws.8 In his commentary on the future of war, blog
editor Matt Novak mentions that ‘autonomous robot
“And although to the United States, a drone strike
seems to have very little risk and very little pain, at
the receiving end, it feels like war.”
- Retired United States (US) General,
Stanley McChrystal1
-
3
Hanging By A Thread — Our Connection To War
soldiers will shift our understanding of what it means to
fight and to wage war … these technologies mean we
have lost any connection to war and the real world
destruction that it brings.’10 —This essay thus explores
the legitimacy of this claim. In the first part of the essay
the author will highlight the trends in war. In the second
part, he will detail the advent of autonomous
technologies.11 Thereafter, the author will discuss the
potential reasons that support the notion and finally
conclude that it is indeed true that autonomous
technology has diminished our connection to war.
TRENDS IN WAR
Despite the fact that we have witnessed the
proliferation of military robots, has the nature of war
really changed? Globalisation has definitely changed the
security paradigm in the world. This has led to a
decrease in interstate conflict and the rise of intrastate
conflict. Accordingly, states that are integrated into the
global economy appear less likely to use conventional
military forces.12 From an analysis of the changing
character of conflict, authors Frank Hoffman and Pat
Garrett have identified 11 trends shaping future conflict.
In terms of the scale of wars, they predicted the move
away from mass wars and that armies can expect their
operations to be concurrent, diverse and distant (See
Figure 1 for trends in armed conflict). This shift
necessitates a change in how leaders are prepared and
the need to develop small-unit excellence. Achieving
small-unit dominance will demand changes in how
tactical units are equipped, trained and prepared.
Globalisation has definitely
changed the security paradigm in
the world. This has led to a
decrease in interstate conflict and
the rise of intrastate conflict.
In terms of terrain, operations would shift from
open terrain to complex terrain. With urbanisation, the
future conflict environment will be more congested,
cluttered and contested (See Figure 2 for regional
trends in Urbanisation). The columnists cited retired US
Army General. Robert Scales who recommended that,
‘The technological challenge is to provide mounted and
dismounted small units greater survivability in the close
fight while remaining effective.’13 In terms of future
adversaries, they predicted the shift to more protean
enemies. The doctrines and capabilities of future
enemies will also be less predictable and more
ambiguous. The context for many contingencies will
also become more ambiguous and may incorporate
aspects of political conflict and unconventional warfare.
Future threats will increasingly use a combination
of hybrid options. These threats would transcend from
our typical domains of land, sea, air, space and into new
Figure 1: Global Trends in Armed Conflict, 1946-2015.9
-
4
Hanging By A Thread — Our Connection To War
domains such as cyberspace, and even the
electromagnetic spectrum, while reaching across
broader geographic ranges. Silos among the different
military services would therefore need to be breached.
Technological advancements in biotech, robotics, data
sciences, nanomaterial developments, and energy
production will advance commercial and military
applications. One of the greatest sources of innovation
in the future will be the combination of man and
machine. While unmanned systems have seen increased
capabilities, they still require skilled operators. And it is
this very trend that heralds the rise of autonomous
robot operators.
ADVENT OF AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGY
The early incentive for ‘Unmanned’ or
autonomous systems was to take over the duties
performed by humans or manned systems that involved
the 3Ds, ‘dull’ (involving long periods or repetitive
operations), ‘dirty’ (involving operations in
contaminated environments), or ‘dangerous’ (involving
operations in which the danger to humans and manned
systems are deemed excessively high, such as
minesweeping or explosive ordnance disposal).15 With
the evolution of unmanned technology, modern
warfare is seeing an increasing use of autonomous
technology. The US in particular has deployed
thousands of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in its
recent campaigns, with ‘nearly four times as many
drone strikes in Pakistan during the first two years of
the Obama administration as there were during the
entire Bush administration.’16 In fact, the USAF currently
trains more drone operators than it does fighter pilots.17
The current trends in autonomous systems have seen
an increased interest towards the interoperability of
autonomous systems. With the latest advances in
autonomous technology, we now see autonomous
systems performing far beyond their earlier envisioned
uses and placing increasing firepower and control into
the operator’s hands.
With the latest advances in
autonomous technology, we now
see autonomous systems
performing far beyond their
earlier envisioned uses and
placing increasing firepower and
control into the operator’s hands.
Swarming
Swarming which is inspired by swarms of insects,
are groups of small independent unmanned vehicles
that co-ordinate their operations to accomplish goals as
an intelligent group, with or without human
supervision. It may be a heterogeneous mix of machines
with dissimilar tasks but contributing to an overall
mission objective.18 The advantage in swarm technology
is that a drone swarm can take multiple hits,
reconfigure and keep going. They may even provide an
economic advantage as the adversary is forced to track
multiple, low value targets instead of a high valued
one19. In a recent test in October 2016, the US DoD
Figure 2: Regional trends in Urbanisation.14
-
5
Hanging By A Thread — Our Connection To War
Strategic Capabilities Office collaborated with the Naval
Air Systems Command to conduct a test in which three
F/A-18 Hornet aircraft dispersed 104 Perdix micro-
drones that swarmed, and performed a series of
designated ‘missions’—including finally swarming in a
circle around a designated point on the ground (Figure
3).20 With this success, it is believed that unmanned
systems can take on some dangerous missions in the
future, thereby protecting the warfighter, and yet do
that in great numbers at a fraction of the cost of a
manned system.21
Systems Teaming
As manned and unmanned systems possess
different strengths and weaknesses, teaming an optimal
mix of assets can create a more powerful, functional
synergised system. Thus, a smaller number of high value
assets could work in concert with a larger number of
cheaper ones for better cost-effectiveness.22 In the US,
the amount of time, effort, and resources expended on
Army Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) research
and development have grown exponentially in the past
two decades.23 In 2016, the US Army reported great
success in the use of MUM-T in both Iraq and
Afghanistan.24 In the latest development, USAF and
Lockheed Martin’s advanced projects unit, ‘Skunk
Works’, have completed a series of flight tests
demonstrating the teaming of manned and unmanned
F-16 fighter jets in mock combat operations. With the
success of MUM-T technology, the Air Force plans to
begin flying aircraft equipped to control a full ‘Loyal
Wingman’ drone formation in 2018.25
SHIFTING OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IT MEANS TO FIGHT AND TO
WAGE WAR
With the advent of autonomous technology, it is
clear that the wars of the future will feature
autonomous robot soldiers. But will they shift our
understanding of what it means to fight and to wage
war? While autonomous technologies possess many
advantages, I will next point out the controversies
brought about by autonomous technologies that will
create the shift distancing us from the horrors of war.
Figure 3: Swarm of drones circling in an attack.26
-
6
Hanging By A Thread — Our Connection To War
Moral and Ethical Issues
One question that looms in the military use of
unmanned systems is that, ‘who decides who lives or
dies?’ Most high-ranking military men and futurist
philosophers believe that robots should not be allowed
to kill anyone unless a human being is in the loop, which
may lead towards the future of ‘Video Game Warfare’.27
However, it has been argued that the inherent design of
military drones limits the ability of humans to be in full
intelligent control of them. Thus, even if a so called
moral agent is controlling the drone, the outcomes of
the actions of the socio-technical ensemble may not be
moral.28 The United Kingdom (UK) Approach to
Unmanned Aircraft Systems was convened by British
defence officials to study the case of unmanned systems
amid mounting controversy over drone use against
insurgents on the Afghanistan and Pakistan borders. The
study iterates that, ‘it is essential that before unmanned
systems become ubiquitous (if it is not already too late)
… we ensure that, by removing some of the horror, or at
least keeping it at a distance, we do not risk losing our
controlling humanity and make war more likely.’29
The US DoD has similarly advocated that military
weapons maintain human control and its Directive
3000.09 requires a high-ranking defence official to
approve unusual uses of autonomous technology and
calls for those systems to always keep ‘appropriate
levels of human judgment over the use of force.’30
Another question that looms is, ‘could the targeted
persons have been captured rather than killed?’ A case
which fuels this question is the series of drone strikes by
the US in Pakistan and Yemen in 2011 which reportedly
killed as many as 15 persons in Pakistan and 2 in
Yemen.31 Even though former President Obama had
proclaimed that the US ‘does not take strikes when we
have the ability to capture individual terrorists,’ a
Human Rights Watch report in 2013 had detailed drone
strikes in which the targeted persons could have been
captured instead of killed.32
Ease of Waging Wars
Autonomous systems have been coined
inventions that make it easier to wage war. The
increased separation of the operator from the actual
battlefield reduces the ethical and moral dilemma a
person must overcome before he can duly justify taking
a human life. Coupled with a complex causal chain
involving a ‘chain of command’, it becomes easier for a
Drone operator to psychological distance himself from
the consequences of his actions. As a result of killing in a
professional capacity, he may not regard himself as a
murderer.33
On a larger scale, countries can now easily go to
war without risking the lives of their soldiers.34 In a
study of a decade of lethal killings by drones, indications
show that the availability of drones has resulted in the
Figure 4: (MUM-T) squadron, combining Boeing AH-64D/EApache with Textron Systems Shadow UAV.35
-
7
Hanging By A Thread — Our Connection To War
resort to military force that would not otherwise
occur.36 Politically, drones present national leaders a
simple answer in partaking in campaigns. They can
assure their allies that they are still making a major
military commitment while at the same time assure
their people that they are not risking their nationals as
there are no ‘boots on the ground.’ As a matter of fact,
autonomous systems need not even be operated by
combat fit soldiers. All that is required is a person who
can follow the instructions to operate the system, be it a
teenager, child or even a couch potato.
The increased employment of robots to kill has
also made it easier to control the narrative of conflict as
well. Wars are usually messy affairs and are rarely black
and white. Yet autonomous systems that fire precision
bombs and guided missiles have possibly reduced war
to a video game with good guys and bad guys. It is not
pure coincidence that many of the computer interfaces
for modern weapons take after game controllers and
consoles.37 In the confession of former American
Autonomous robot operator Brandon Bryant, he
recalled that after leaving the force upon completing six
years on the job, he was presented a scorecard covering
his achievement. It read, ‘Total enemies killed in action:
1,626.’38 Indeed, everything was treated just like
another report card and was devoid of humanity.
Non-Conformance To International Laws
The rules of warfare necessitate ‘combatants’ to
be reasonably well demarcated, so that there is a
distinction on who can or cannot be targeted.
Accountability now becomes an issue when the only
opposition on the battlefield is an autonomously
controlled robot. In many reported cases, the enemy is
often taken down while engaged in clearly non-
combative situations, getting blasted unsuspectingly
during daily activities in a typically civilian facility than in
an approved strategic military target area. In such
situations, the unsuspecting target does not defend
against the perpetrators and is instead, ‘assassinated’
without a trial or any due process.39 Furthermore, Rule 1
of the International Humanitarian Law states that
parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish
between civilians and combatants.40 Thus, targeting
from a distance in the heat of a conflict could
exacerbate opportunities for contravention.
Possible Exploitation of Children
While international law does not prevent the
prosecution of children who commit war crimes, article
37 of the United Nations(UN) Convention on the Rights
of the Child limits the punishment that a child can
receive including ‘Neither capital punishment nor life
imprisonment without possibility of release shall be
imposed for offences committed by persons below
eighteen years of age.’41 To contravene International
law, we may see children being exploited to fight the
war with the ease of operating unmanned technology
nowadays. The children might be led to think that they
are playing video games, but in fact they are killing
someone somewhere on a battlefield that is miles away.
In fact, reports have seemed to suggest that the US
military have targeted the recruitment of gamers as
young as twelve years old as US drone pilots. The
reports have also claimed that the ‘skillsets’ of young
players are currently still sought by US and European
forces.42
Accountability now becomes an
issue when the only opposition on
the battlefield is an autonomously
controlled robot.
Unaccountability and Anonymity
Unaccountability may present itself due to the
concept of distance—both psychological and
geographical. Psychologically, operators may distance
themselves from the consequences of their actions as
they may have regarded that they had killed in a
professional rather than in a personal capacity.
Geographical distance is often regarded as a precursor
to psychological distance. Thus, geographical distance
from where the killing occurs makes it relatively easy to
psychologically distance oneself from the consequences
of one’s actions.43 For operators, they may feel
unaccountable if the autonomous weapons are so
complex that they feel that it is the weapon and not
themselves that is doing the killing.44 They may even
hide behind the anonymity of a faceless robot.
-
8
Hanging By A Thread — Our Connection To War
Psychological Stress
While it may sound unusual, human operators
who operate autonomous drones are susceptible to the
same psychological stress that infantrymen sometimes
experience after combat. In fact, Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD) rates among UK and US Reaper crews
are similar to the rates found in manned aircraft pilots.45
For drone operators in the US, many of them steer their
armed drones via satellite from air-conditioned trailers,
however combat stress can be accentuated by the
contrast between their jobs and their otherwise
peaceful surroundings. Missy Cummings, a
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) drone
developer and former pilot recounts that’, You shoot a
missile, you kill a handful of people. And then—this is
what is strange—you go home. Your shift is over’. She
further adds that, ‘When you fight in a war without
living in a combat zone, it’s harder to keep it in
perspective.’ Even though the pilots are killing from a
virtual or remote site, it is difficult for them to shift the
feeling of responsibility or offload their feelings to the
robots. Thus, this places a moral and emotional burden
on the pilots and can lead to psychological stress akin to
that of a PTSD developed by their other combatant
counterparts.46
LOSING OUR CONNECTION TO WAR
AND THE REAL DESTRUCTION THAT IT
BRINGS
Based on the earlier controversies brought about
by the use of autonomous technologies to wage war,
the author concluded that they would likely lead to the
loss of life and result in deaths in unparalleled
proportions. While a robot army can reduce the human
risk of invasion, they would trim the threshold to war
and thus increase the optimism to wage wars. They
would create the distance between weapon users and
the deadly force that they can unleash, thus creating a
video game that erases morality. Distanced from the
nausea of butchery, an aggressor can murder without
batting an eyelid and victims become mere digits in
spreadsheets. In addition to being physically removed
from any kinetic action, humans would also become
more detached from making decisions to kill and
commit execution.47 In a split second, targets can be
killed with the flip of a button.
While it may be argued that there are
psychological demands placed upon autonomous pilots
and possible civilian fatalities due to flawed intelligence,
these same arguments similarly apply to conventional
warfare. In fact, militaries such as the US military are
already working towards reducing instances of drone
operator PTSD by alleviating the combat stress felt by
them.48 The UN report on lethal autonomous robots
aptly sums up that the use of autonomous robots,
‘numbs us to what it means for others to suffer in war,
our bandoliered androids would help us forget what it
means for us to suffer in war. The cost of conflict would
be purely economic, a chance of busted springs and
fried wires. Skirmishes abroad would become
noncommittal, capricious and arbitrary, opening the
gate to perpetual carnage.’ All of the factors discussed
above would definitely tip the scale and show that
autonomous technologies will indeed make us lose our
connection to war and the real destruction that it
brings.
CONCLUSION
There is a role and place for both autonomous
and manned systems in the future battlefield. The key is
to strike a balance and be able to get the best out of
each. While an autonomous system might be able keep
a human out of harm's way, the controversies that
come with using an autonomous system can blind us to
war and the real destruction it brings. The main
drawback of using unmanned systems however would
be whether we are making it easy to wage wars and
thereby treading into moral and ethical issues. In the
end, the human factor is still crucial as aptly summed up
by the following quote:
“The human factor will decide the fate of war, of all
wars. Not the Mirage, nor any other plane, and not the
screwdriver, or the wrench or radar or missiles or all the
newest technology and electronic innovations.”
- Ezer Weizman
Air Force Commander, Israeli Defence Forces 49
-
9
Hanging By A Thread — Our Connection To War
ENDNOTES
1. “A Conversation with Stanley McChrystal,” Foreign Affairs, March/April 2013 Issue, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/interviews/2013-02-11/generation-kill.
2. Matthew Power, “Confessions of a Drone Warrior,” GQ, 22 October 2013, http://www.gq.com/story/drone-uav-pilot-assassination.
3. “Retired US drone operator tells of the turmoil he feels after killing by remote control,” News Corp Australia Network, 25 October 2013, http://www.news.com.au/world/retired-us-drone-operator-tells-of-the-turmoil-he-feels-after-killing-by-remote-control/news-story/ed015921260a8e31190a4ac3a1967466.
4. Dr. Alex Leveringhaus, “Autonomous weapons mini-series: Distance, weapons technology and humanity in armed conflict,” Humanitarian Law & Policy, 6 October 2017, http://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2017/10/06/distance-weapons-technology-and-humanity-in-armed-conflict/.
5. Jethro Mullen, “Report: Former drone operator shares his inner torment,” CNN, 25 October 2013, http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/23/us/drone-operator-interview/index.html.
6. Jack Detsch, “The Rise of Military Robot R&D: A Global Phenomenon,” The Diplomat, 22 May 2015, http://thediplomat.com/2015/05/the-rise-of-military-robot-rd-a-global-phenomenon/.
7. ME5 Calvin Seah Ser Thong, ME5 Tang Chun Howe and ME4 (NS) Lee Weiliang Jerome, “Unmanned Technology - The Holy Grail for Militaries?” POINTER 38, no. 4 (2013).
8. “Diplomats discuss laws for autonomous military weapons,” Business Insider, 20 April 2016, http://www.businessinsider.com/diplomats-discuss-laws-for-autonomous-military-weapons-2016-4?IR=T&r=US&IR=T.
9. Source: http://www.systemicpeace.org/conflicttrends.html.
10. Matt Novak, “Robot history: The rise of the drone,” BBC, 4 April 2012, http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120403-robots-go-to-war.
11. I Will discuss autonomous technology based on Matt Novak’s commentary where he equates it to unmanned technology. Therefore, it does not connote fully autonomous technology that does not require any human decisions. It was predicted by experts that fully autonomous weapons could be achieved in only 20 to 30 years.
12. Capt. Johnny Sokolosky Jr., “The Future of War - How Globalization is Changing the Security Paradigm,” Military Review, Jan-Feb 2016.
13. Past and Present as Prologue, Future Warfare through the lens of contemporary conflicts Source:http://usrs-web-d01.humancaresystems.com/publications/reports/the-past-and-present-as-prologue-future-warfare-through-the-lens-of-contemporary-conflicts
14. Source:http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2001ClimateChangeImpactsandEmergingPopulationTrendsARecipeforDisaster.aspx.
15. Mike Hammer, “A Few God Bots,” in Rise of the Robots, ed. Neil Fine, (New York: Time Home Entertainment, 2013).
16. Job, C. Henning, “Wanted – a doctrine for use of Drones,” TODAY, Comment & Analysis, 22 February 2012.
17. Matt Novak, “Robot history: The rise of the drone,” BBC, 4 April 2012, http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120403-robots-go-to-war.
18. Puneet Bhalla, “Emerging Trends in Unmanned Aerial Systems,” Scholar Warrior, Autumn 2015
19. Lara Seligman, “How Swarming Drones Could Change the Face of Air Warfare,” DefenseNews, 17 May 2016, http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2016/05/17/drone-air-force-swarm-mini-uas/84496780/
20. Sean Gallagher, “DOD successfully tests terrifying swarm of 104 micro-drones,” Ars Technica, 13 January 2017, https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/01/dod-successfully-tests-terrifying-swarm-of-104-micro-drones/
-
10
Hanging By A Thread — Our Connection To War
21. David Smalley, “Autonomous Swarmboats: New Missions, Safe Harbors,” Office of Naval Research, 14 December 2016, https://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2016/Autonomous-Swarmboats.
22. Puneet Bhalla, “Emerging Trends in Unmanned Aerial Systems,” Scholar Warrior, Autumn 2015.
23. COL Thomas von Eschenbach, “Unmanned Aircraft Systems - Manned-Unmanned Teaming,” Army Aviation, http://www.armyaviationmagazine.com/index.php/archive/not-so-current/589-unmanned-aircraft-systems-manned-unmanned-teaming.
24. Kris Osborn, “Army expands manned-unmanned helicopter teaming,” Defense Systems, 13 December 2016, https://defensesystems.com/articles/2016/12/13/apache.aspx.
25. Tamir Eshel, “Autonomous Strike – a New Milestone in Manned-Unmanned Teaming,” Defense Update, 10 April 2017, http://defense-update.com/20170410_have_raider.html.
26. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/01/dod-successfully-tests-terrifying-swarm-of-104-micro-drones/
27. Lance Winslow, “Unmanned Vehicle Robotic Warfare,” 18 May 2007.
28. Christopher Newman, “‘Moralization’ of Technologies – Military Drones: A Case Study,” E-International Relations Students, 2 May 2012, http://www.e-ir.info/2012/05/02/moralization-of-technologies-military-drones-a-case-study/.
29. UK Ministry of Defence, “UK Approach to Unmanned Aircraft Systems,” Joint Doctrine Note 2/11, 30 March 2011, http://www.parliament.uk/deposits/depositedpapers/2011/DEP2011-1514.pdf.
30. Eyder Peralta, “Weighing The Good And The Bad Of Autonomous Killer Robots In Battle,” NPR, 28 April 2016, http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/04/28/476055707/weighing-the-good-and-the-bad-of-autonomous-killer-robots-in-battle.
31. Mary Ellen O'Connell, “Seductive Drones: Learning from a Decade of Lethal Operations,” Journal of Law, Information & Science, Notre Dame Legal Studies Paper No. 11-35, August 2011.
32. “Between a Drone and Al-Qaeda,” Human Rights Watch, October 2013, https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/yemen1013_ForUpload.pdf.
33. Dr. Alex Leveringhaus, “Autonomous weapons mini-series: Distance, weapons technology and humanity in armed conflict,” Humanitarian Law & Policy, 6 October 2017, http://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2017/10/06/distance-weapons-technology-and-humanity-in-armed-conflict/.
34. S.A.S, “The Invisible Killers: Drones on the Rise,” accessed 15 August 2015, http://www.scattergood.org/sites/default/files/SS_Drones%20on%20the%20Rise.pdf.
35. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-army-establishes-first-manned-unmanned-unit-410504/.
36. Mary Ellen O'Connell, “Seductive Drones: Learning from a Decade of Lethal Operations,” Journal of Law, Information & Science, Notre Dame Legal Studies Paper No. 11-35, August 2011.
37. Thomas G. Vincent, “The Ethics of Robotic War,” The Ethical Spectacle, March 2009, http://www.spectacle.org/0309/vincent.html.
38. Matthew Power, “Confessions of a Drone Warrior,” GQ, 22 October 2013, http://www.gq.com/story/drone-uav-pilot-assassination.
39. The Conflict Source, “Unmanned Drones, and why they suck,” 30 December 2011, http://conflictsource.com/2011/12/30/combat-drones/.
40. ICRC, “Rules/Rule 1,” https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter1_rule1.
41. Lauren McCollough, “The Military Trial of Omar Khadr: Child Soldiers and the Law,” Crimes of War Project, 10 Mar 2008.
42. Dan Pearson, “War Games: the link between gaming and military recruitment,” gamesindustry.biz, 2 February 2015, http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2015-02-02-the-military-recruitment-of-gamers.
-
11
Hanging By A Thread — Our Connection To War
43. Dr Alex Leveringhaus, “Autonomous weapons mini-series: Distance, weapons technology and humanity in armed conflict,” Humanitarian Law & Policy, 6 October 2017, http://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2017/10/06/distance-weapons-technology-and-humanity-in-armed-conflict/.
44. Michael Horowitz and Paul Scharre, “The Morality of Robotic War,” The New York Times, 26 May 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/27/opinion/the-morality-of-robotic-war.html?_r=0.
45. Peter Lee, “Killing with drones is not ‘easy’,” The Conversation, 10 December 2013, http://theconversation.com/killing-with-drones-is-not-easy-21295.
46. Catherine Crier, “Anthropomorphized drones to reduce drone operator PTSD?” 17 June 2012, http://patriotacts.com/?p=1075.
47. United Nations, Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Christof Heyns, A/HRC/23/47, 9 April 2013.
48. Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2249252/Brandon-Bryant-Drone-operator-followed-orders-shoot-child--decided-quit.html.
49. Ezer Weizman, On Eagles' Wings: The Personal Story of the Leading Commander of the Israeli Air Force (New York: Macmillan, 1976).
ME6 Calvin Seah Ser Thong is currently a Branch Head in HQ Maintenance and
Engineering Support and had recently completed a secondment to the Land
Transport Authority. ME6 Calvin is an Army Engineer by vocation and is registered
as a Chartered Engineer (Singapore) under the Transportation Engineering Sector.
ME6 Calvin holds a Bachelors of Engineering in Mechanical & Production
Engineering from Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Master of Science in
Industrial and Systems Engineering from National University of Singapore (NUS)
and a Master of Science in Defence Technology and Systems from NUS obtained
under the SAF Postgraduate Award. He had also attained a Master of Science in
Human Capital Management from NTU under the SAF-NTU continuing education
Master Programme and was placed on the Nanyang Business School’s Dean’s List.
top related