The case for declaring armed and fully autonomous drone swarms as WMD
mwi.usma.edu
mwi.usma.edu
How often does a remote operator need to check in with a drone for it to no longer be "fully autonomous"? How many such drones could the operator be monitoring at once? How many drones constitute a swarm?
A sovereign power can plausibly regulate blurry categories by just picking arbitrary but clearly defined cut-offs, e.g., the difference between a moped and a motorcycle is defined as an engine with a certain number of cc's. But this is a lot harder when you need to get dozens of different countries to all agree on a rule. International law is more dependent than domestic law on appealing to clear moral boundaries, since there is no higher earthly power to appeal to.
"The most widely used definition of "weapons of mass destruction" is that of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons (NBC) although there is no treaty or customary international law that contains an authoritative definition. Instead, international law has been used with respect to the specific categories of weapons within WMD, and not to WMD as a whole."
However, there is one definition given in the Wikipedia article that seems to be sufficiently precise:
"""
(1) Any explosive, incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, or rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces [113 g], missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce [7 g], or mine or device similar to the above.
(2) Poison gas.
(3) Any weapon involving a disease organism.
(4) Any weapon that is designed to release radiation at a level dangerous to human life.
"""
I definitely agree with your overall point that defining AFADS as a WMD will require careful navigation of the blurriness surrounding the category. On the other hand, it seems like that second definition is already in the territory of choosing arbitrary cutoffs (ie 113 grams).
An alternative perhaps is to focus on handling the "autonomous" part, rather than the "swarm" part, as the USMA article suggests. The definition here can be more precise/less arbitrary I think: a weapon that can at any time be overridden by an operator is not fully autonomous. However, if its regular operation includes a period where there is no operator in the position to override it (eg the drone(s) keep doing their thing while the operator is away from the controls), it would then count as fully autonomous. Having some authentication that the operator is at the controls at all times, available to override and legally responsible for the behavior of the drone(s) is the key to this approach I think.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction
Whelp, I guess artillery and grenades are fully autonomous.
It is much more useful to think about the reverse situation: how does viewing future autonomous weapons as a sort of artillery shell with high CEP (or whatever feature you imagine the future weapons has) clarify the morality of its use?
Am I correct in interpreting your sarcastic comment as meaning you think that pursuing some definition of "autonomous" is a nonstarter here?
The US military, like every other organisation outside the US, doesn't include conventional explosives under WMD.
If there's any point that a human cannot 'abort', then it needs to be classified as a WMD.
Out of human control I view swarm UCAVs as an unrecallable remote shotgun for the same reason as the article author, it's "inherently indiscriminate".
If the drone requires an operator to press the fire button, it is not fully autonomous. If it does not, it is.
Any regulation of lethal autonomous drones will require some nuance in the wording.
To me, it’s more about intelligence than numbers. You could have a single rocket but if it’s smart enough to evade enemy defenses, that rocket could level a city.
https://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/air-s...
Sure. Because they know their limits.
But in the context of the thread, the point is that the US can institute whatever "international law" it sees fit (as long as it as the strength of will to do so) outside of the spheres of influence of China and Russia.
(I think we're heading for the classical Oceania/Eurasia/Eastasia split, but I could have read too many entirely fictional books in my formative years. Personally, I'd have preferred to have been in the timeline with centrifugal bumble-puppy and feelies)
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/wmd
A WMD is defined by U.S. law as any of the following:
* A destructive device, such as an explosive or incendiary bomb, rocket, or grenade;
* A weapon that is designed to cause death or serious injury through toxic or poisonous chemicals;
* A weapon that contains a biological agent or toxin; or
* A weapon that is designed to release dangerous levels of radiation or radioactivity.
As someone else said, this is presumably so they can charge people with terrorism for using basically any kind of explosive.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2010-title18/pdf/...
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim...
But I think the autonomous part and the fact capabilities will keep ratcheting up and more actors enter the arena make it a type of WMD.
WMD is characterized by the low effort needed to sew massive destruction (and inability to distinguish civilians from military) once you have the tech —but getting the tech can be difficult. A full invasion army takes effort. A swarm of drones once you have the tech, is not much effort.
Thought there wouldn't be a whole lot of destruction like older weapons. Maybe it's more of a WMM (M is for Murder).
Thought experiment: What's the MVP for killer drones? Single use explosives like the Slaughterbots video? Or are there viable reusable weapons systems on drones that fit in your hand?
Given that mass destruction can be performed, the distinction to me is whether the "WMD" is a weapon (and not a collection of weapons). Like a MIRV with many warheads, we consider that one WMD don't we? If instead it had thousands of drones in it, what's the difference?
Obviously depending on the type of drone traditional WMDs could be deployed with them.
I think that's a good point that I missed. The "mass" part of it. But even if we coded drones to only target military, this could be turned off or changed.
Maybe we need code signing and weapons inspectors before determining if a swarm is a WMD or not.
double mass == double force ; double speed == 4times the force. basically a rapier attack
Prior to the events of the game, Skell Technology comes under increasing public scrutiny when they are faced with mounting evidence that its products are falling into the hands of corrupt regimes, whilst its technology is implicated in an assassination of a political candidate by an armed drone.[c] The situation escalates further when the USS Seay, an American cargo ship sinks off the coast of the Auroa archipelago and all contact with both the island and its inhabitants are subsequently cut off from the outside world. Determined to investigate the cause, CIA Deputy Director Peter Miles initiates Operation Greenstone, deploying a Ghost Recon platoon from the USS Wasp to re-establish contact with Auroa and determine the circumstances of the Seay's sinking. The insertion ends in disaster when the helicopters carrying the platoon to the island are attacked by a swarm of drones. Nomad is the sole able-bodied survivor of his squadmates, whilst Holt is seriously injured in the crash, and Midas is missing in action.
Shortly after obtaining a weapon and attempting to find a working radio to communicate with the Wasp, Nomad witnesses a firefight between several Ghosts led by Weaver and multiple unidentified individuals. The firefight abruptly ends when Weaver is executed by Cole Walker, a former member of the Ghosts who is now leading the assault force, known as the "Wolves." Additionally, Nomad discovers a private military company called Sentinel is also operating on the island alongside the Wolves. Eventually, Nomad manages to reach Erewhon, a secret mountain hideout that is kept hidden from both Sentinel as well as the Wolves. With the assistance of ex-U.S. Marine Mads Schulz, Erewhon's de facto leader and his wife Maria, Nomad learns that the drone swarms that ambushed the platoon have imposed a defensive perimeter around the island; preventing anyone from entering or leaving the Archipelago. To help bring down the drones protecting the island, Nomad works with another survivor, fellow Ghost Recon Sergeant Major Josiah Hill and is instructed to locate Maurice Fox, Skell Tech's chief mathematician, his daughter Harmony, and eventually Jace Skell himself.
Upon reaching Skell, Nomad discovers that Hill has been secretly working with Walker and the two offer Nomad a place by their side. Nomad refuses and manages to evacuate Skell to Erewhon.
Nuclear weapons are restrictive because the enrichment process is difficult.
Biological weapons are restrictive because the cultivation process is difficult.
Drones are easy, machine learning is becoming more approachable for every person in civilized society.
Better to make a counter-drone-swarm technology company than worry about what regulators are going to do when a terrorist cell starts to manufacture killer drones - you cannot stop that with regulation, you can only stop that with your own drone swarm.
This is a new age of war, and if free society is to stand a chance it needs to develop and research countermeasures for this sort of stuff - classification and regulation is meaningless as deterrence.
Honestly I find them far scarier than the other two because as technology improves, it's becoming easier and easier to build designer diseases in a back yard lab.
It isn't a suicide mission if your side is immune to it. For example, biological warfare against the natives were instrumental in the conquest of the americas. Not only did it quickly thin down and weaken the native population, it also left the infrastructure intact.
Correct me if I'm wrong but hardening against that increases the weight and cost.
Yes, small EMP devices might be a good way to temporarily or permanently disable individual drones and swarms of drones hanging out to close to each other. Good idea.
Think, even OPEC members cheat all the time, and their oil output and sales is reasonably easy to check/forecast/estimate.
Here's some legitimate drone swarm military applications that wouldn't qualify as WMD:
* reconnaissance drone swarms; the drones can be as small as a hummingbird, but they can also be larger; their "weapon" is their camera.
* armed drone swarms aimed for saturation attacks against military naval assets.
* armed drone swarms for area denial. Think defense of a large uninhabited border area between Russia and China. If you detect a mass of tanks crossing the border and send a drone swarm to kill everything in that area, the danger of killing non-combatants is nil
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Wea...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat...
(it seems unlikely anyone should be concerned that the Vatican isn't a signatory)
https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...
Plus nobody is stuffing this genie back in its bottle. Unlike nuclear or chemical it doesn't require a complicated precursor and is much easier to sell as "well be careful OK".
Think about it...your Roomba cleans your floor autonomously and your kid has a 100 buck drone as a toy. Yeah some pieces of the swarming puzzle are missing but give it a year or three and even that is will be widespread.
Meanwhile Trump is rolling back mutual agreements, Putin is posturing as usual and China is building drones faster than anyone else (see toy above).
This horse bolted years ago
Anyways, how would you verify that signatories don't have drone swarms and can't make and deploy them quickly even if they don't have them? It seems to me that verification is practically impossible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyMNIFZTQkg
(I love it in the sense that I'd love a dystopian scifi movie, but not a reality like this)
A swarm of non lethal drones equipped with 3D/depth cameras that collaborate in order to establish a dynamic 3D map of the terrain. A user consuming data from the swarm would enjoy a live "God's view" on what actually happens in reality, but through a 3D view displayed on a screen, very much like in Starcraft but without an artificial "fog of war".
This isn't a weapon of mass destruction nor a weapon in the classical meaning of the word.
But is this a weapon system, i.e. a system meant to ensure or enhance a weapon's function, such as targeting and guidance ?
I think you would be hard pressed to classify cameras as weapons. No one is being harmed by the action of taking a picture - you would have to introduce a separate weapon, such as a missile or gun, to cause any damage, and those are all governed by existing regulations.
big guys from the elite nuke wielding club naturally wouldn't want small guys being able to threaten them. Reminds this saying "God created men equal. Colonel Colt made them equal."
exactly. That makes for a very unstable situation as any small guy without credible ability to respond can become a prey at any moment.
> It’s the instability it brings along with future potential among the big players that’s of concern.
Historical experience shows that MAD brings stability. Compare the fate of North Korea vs. Libya, Iraq, Ukraine, etc.
If every nation has nukes, plausible deniability for suitcase nukes goes out the window, and, with it, MAD. That's a guarantee that nukes will then be used.
Not like these lessons have been lost on North Korea or Iran. There's the things the international community says about nukes on one hand, and there's how they actually treat you when you don't have them on the other.
The realpolitik view is that you don't have actual sovereignty without nukes. In my opinion this is why the U.K. for example (which, let's be honest, doesn't really have any practical use for the damn things and wastes a lot of money on them) is nuclear armed.
Realpolitik says Airstrip One gets a better deal from Oceania with that veto; otherwise it could only hope to get treated as well as, say, Japan. (aren't you all impeding the free market by preferring unchlorinated chicken?)
Summarising as I see it:
OP's point was that WMDs (of all kinds) are an equalizer between nations.
Your response was that nuclear proliferation creates instability. You also I think unfairly characterised OP's position as being pro-nuclear proliferation. You assumed OP was talking about nukes but I believe they were making a broader point.
My response to you was that nuclear anti-proliferation efforts create a kind of hegemony where dominant nations get cemented in power forever.
For the record, I'm also anti-nuclear-proliferation, but I wanted to point out that from the point of view of anyone not under the protective nuclear umbrella of a dominant nation there's a heavy element of hypocrisy involved.
Circling back around to drones, I can see why the U.S. might want to restrict them or classify them as WMDs. I think the following is where OP was coming from:
They have the potential to undermine conventional power and effectively turn war into a competition of mass cheap manufacturing capability. It's not at all clear in 2020 that the U.S. (in particular) would be able to dominate in such a situation.
They're super hard to regulate in the sense that a nation aligned to a major manufacturing power could acquire or stockpile them in massive quantities with little oversight.
It would create a possibly surprising shift in power where the U.S. might not be able to project conventional force into areas where they would normally expect to be able to do that.
They're also tricky in terms of message management (big part of warfare) because when used defensively, a nuclear response to them is not politically credible. So you can't use the big stick.
This doesn't create nuclear instability but it does create "instability" in the sense that it has the potential to shift the balance of power for the existing nuclear and conventional hegemony.
Which I think was the crux of the OP's original point.
My question to OP had been whether they are pro-proliferation. You're free to take the question as "characterizing their position as pro-proliferation" all you want, but I think it's a fair question.