As someone interested in the weird dance of international law, it's fascinating how it is accepted that you can ship a missile platform somewhere but it doesn't count as declaring war unless one of your guys, acting as a soldier in your military, fires the missiles.
What do you think will happen if/when there are on-the-ground combat robots? Drones seem to have been accepted as not causing war, but somehow an armed robotic quadruped feels different?
@rivetgeek@ZachWeinersmith As I understand, that's by design though; you'd want each nation to define what they consider crossing the line into an act of war, in part because you don't want someone using an de jure law to require you to declare war against them...when you would rather avoid a war.
It's the international relations rule of not requiring everyone to call your bluff.
@ZachWeinersmith Well, what is a war, and when is it declared? This isn't a pedantic or academic question, because we have the whole Vietnam War that 'technically' as a US war was never declared, but was said to be one in international law.... except where it wasn't. And it wasn't alone in they grey area ( fairly sure Russia is claiming the invasion isn't a war either!), so is it x Acts of War....
It's a little scary that this isn't well defined, with wartime contingencies being a thing.
@ZachWeinersmith I think the human operators giving orders to those drones will fill the role currently filled by soldiers for this purpose, so long as it's fit for purpose with regard to actually following those orders. If not, then the manufacturer would be responsible, and if a state actor was accidentally-on-purpose ensuring that faulty killbots got into a war, that should be considered an act of war.
@ZachWeinersmith
The reason drone usage isn't considered an act of war is because they are mainly used by hegemons. The second someone uses a drone to fight back, it'll be not only an act of war but also a war crime.
@ZachWeinersmith The same problem comes up with the combatant/noncombatant distinction in legitimate war targets. If all of the "combatants" in a drone war are in Arizona or St. Petersburg, at some point only noncombatants are left to target.
I think most of the drone operations either have the tacit approval of the recognized government where the strike happens (Pakistan, Yemen, etc), or the nation where the strike happens is essentially incapable of making war because of it.
Many countries are unlikely to go to war with a superpower because "some guy" was killed on their territory.
@ZachWeinersmith Russia has certainly made noise that suggests they think the US is treading close to declaring war. I suspect the reason they haven’t said that yet is they’re not quite ready to engage in a war directly with the US (and most of the world).
@ZachWeinersmith fair chance of addenda to the current body of law. A lot of thing that were previously not thought about are in front of us now. But cheap drones can be used by insurgent forces too and they aren’t usually treaty signatories.
@ZachWeinersmith Russia have hundreds of thousands soldier waging war in Ukraine while being technically not at war with Ukraine. While being at war with Japan due to not having signed peace.
International law does not seems to follow rules
@ZachWeinersmith The drones are not autonomous (at the moment). So there's always a person controlling it, and the important thing is whose army that person fights in.
A robotic quadruped controlled by a human would be in the same category. There's a few of these, but with tracks/wheels already. The Russians used a remote-controlled T-54 "drone" recently.
@ZachWeinersmith There already are on-the-ground combat robots - Ukraine has what are in effect remote controlled cars with a landmine strapped to them. I think the distinction in drones is autonomy without a human in the loop? Maybe it won't matter until actual human soldiers are involved? We've seen red lines blurred multiple times, because it's not in anyone's interest really to see a broader war.
@ZachWeinersmith I think there will be a 'chain of custody' for human decisions in deploying or arming those systems; just as in authority to fire a missile the responsibility must lie with a specific person for any operation that has a lethal or injurious effect.
Add comment