Research Roundtable

Wired for War -- Closing Remarks

John Matthew Barlow — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:15:27 +0000

I'd like to extend our thanks to all those who participated in the Wired for War symposium -- for taking the time to read and consider Peter Singer's account of robotic technology in the battlespace and the potential consequences for warfare, the military, and, indeed, humanity as a whole. The knowledge and expertise of our symposium participants made this conversation fascinating, as they considered the legal, cultural and societal ramifications about robotic warfare.

From the Small Wars Council

John Matthew Barlow — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 03:57:52 +0000

Mike has already alerted us to William F. Owen's challenge to us earlier in the week over at the Small Wars Council, but I thought I'd add to that and point out that an interesting discussion has emerged there in response to Owen.

Wired For Sanctuary: Technology, Threat, Agency, and Intent

Mike Innes — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:07:23 +0000

I'll keep this brief, since I'm running short of time before flying out. The short version, Matt, is that you've misread my points and missed the mark on the ones that you make.

Response to Innes: The Medium is the Message?

John Matthew Barlow — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:54:11 +0000

[Ed's Note: In a rather ironic twist, part of this post got lost in cyberspace somewhere, so it is now updated and in its complete form.]

Marshall McLuhan famously declared that "The Medium is the Message." By this, McLuhan meant that "This is merely to say that the personal and societal consequences of any medium -- that is, of any extension of ourselves -- result from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs by such extension of ourselves, or by any new technology."

Rewired For War: Militant Operating Environments

Mike Innes — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 21:15:31 +0000

I just came out of a conversation with an editor at a major magazine, in which I was embarassingly incapable of intelligently relating my own alleged expertise on insurgent and terrorist sanctuaries to the open discussion on the subject that just threaded its way through the blogosphere over the last few days. The conversation forced me to think hard about what my issues were with the debate, which earn the editor in question a mention in the acknowledgments whenever I get the damn book written

Sci-Fi and the EMA: Evolution in Military Affairs

John T. Fishel — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 15:18:54 +0000

Robert Goldich’s review of Wired for War, published in the Small Wars Journal a few days ago, makes the point that if the revolution in warfare that Singer sees actually takes place, it will take much longer to come to fruition that envisioned in the book. To which, I would add that the revolution will probably not look at all like anything Singer projects as on the horizon.

The ethical dilemmas of the robotic revolution

Antoine Bousquet — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:53:57 +0000

After the more instrumental concerns of command and control, I would here like to consider the ethical issues raised by the development of robotic systems and the consequent removal from harm of military personnel (one of the recurrent claims made in Wired for War is that these machines are saving the lives of young Americans). Precision-guided munitions were seen to make possible the vision of an ethically superior form of warfare, in which the lofty humanitarian ideals invoked for a conflict such as Kosovo

Challenge: From the Small Wars Council

Mike Innes — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:44:12 +0000

All - see the comments below, from SWC council member William F. Owen, asking "How Relevant Is This?":

Just looked through some of the posts on CTlab, and a couple of points spring to mind.

Closely observing the one military to make extensive use of "unmanned vehicles" in a recent conflict, I can safely say that NO ONE is talking about autonomy, in the terms currently being discussed and especially when it comes to lethality.

The primary uses of "unmanned systems" are pretty well codified and pretty well understood, based on recent experience. None of the items raised so far are in any way much relevant to how the actual user communities see the capabilities developing.

The current areas of discussion have very little to do with law (other than ROE) and everything to do with application within the battle space, where ever that maybe.

This is more for some participants than for others, but worth addressing one way or the other. Discuss (please).

Response to Brynen

Charli Carpenter — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 06:08:14 +0000

This began as a response to Rex Brynen's post, but it got too long so now here it is at the top of the Symposium. (Bwah ha ha!!) Brynen argues that it is no puzzle that humanitarian law organizations are non-plussed by the question of autonomous weapons, because in fact the weapons enhance humanitarianism rather than threaten it. Ken makes a similar case. Let me outline why I disagree.

Weapons Bans and Autonomous Battlefield Robots

Kenneth Anderson — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 03:24:58 +0000

As the resident lawyer of this august group, I suppose I should say something about the laws of war as applied to battlefield robots. Not that you would not be able to find a gazillion lawyers who would say something different. However: