Hacker News Reader

Reading this [0] Wikipedia article, it sounds like "Weapon of Mass Destruction" is not a super well-defined term to begin with:

"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

I think that you have to focus on whether you have a human in the loop and can the human reliably interrupt an automated kill chain before there is a release of ordinance (much less fuzing)

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".

> 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.

Whelp, I guess artillery and grenades are fully autonomous.

I mean, if that's your interpretation I suppose you could argue that bullets are autonomous once fired.

Am I correct in interpreting your sarcastic comment as meaning you think that pursuing some definition of "autonomous" is a nonstarter here?

Well, I haven't been able to come up with a good definition and I don't think the criterion you've pointed to is very promising.

I think it’s abundantly obvious to anyone looking at this with good faith that the autonomy refers to the targeting of the weapon and the decision to fire the weapon.

If you're arguing about whether some weapon is a WMD after the fact, good faith isn't really something we can count on. The whole point of precise definitions is eliminating subjectivity. Anyway, that definition includes cruise missiles, which can't be WMDs because they're in widespread use. This line of inquiry is dead in the water.

For the purposes of evaluating morality of actions, yes artillery shells with variable fusings are a primitive version of an autonomous weapon.

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?

In my opinion, no. Killing people with dumb artillery shells vs. smart microdrone swarms seems equally horrific morally. The primary question is about whether one is more dangerous on global scales than the other. Although I think the smarter drones may in fact be more dangerous globally, I haven't seen anyone define a clean criteria for distinguishing them. Without such clean criteria, it looks infeasible to enforce through international law.

Yes, killing is morally reprehensible. But given that we'll not end the practice of war anytime soon, how can you regulate all the senseless killing people are determined to carry out so that it at least some pretence at morality is upheld. That is the sort of problem I had in mind.

I thought we all learned from Iraq that "Weapon of Mass Destruction" is not a super well-defined term?

Iraq wasnt a problem of definitions, it was a problem of blatant lying.

What's going on with the first one? A WMD is defined as a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon or...a large firecracker?

The first definition line comes from a definition of a weapon of mass destruction as related specifically to criminal terrorism charges in the US federal code. In this case they are basically setting the lower bound for what could be classified as a 'bomb'. Nothing more. The WMD definition you are probably thinking of (and the one which is more relevant to the original article) is the military definition outlined in various conventions and treaties.

That's a broadening of the term WMD in the US civilian and criminal legislation, basically defining any "destructive device" as WMD so that anyone setting off hand grenades or pipe bombs can be charged under their extremely severe terror legislation.

The US military, like every other organisation outside the US, doesn't include conventional explosives under WMD.

That's incorrect. CBRNE (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, Explosive) is literally in units' names.[0]

0:https://www.army.mil/20thcbrne

> How often does a remote operator need to check in with a drone for it to no longer be "fully autonomous"?

If the drone requires an operator to press the fire button, it is not fully autonomous. If it does not, it is.

It isn't that simple. If the president has a button linked to 100 000 drones in the air to fire at their respective targets at once, is that a WMD?

Seems pretty irrelevant to me if it should count as a WMD or just a very big conventional attack because the latter is also very bad.

How long can the delay be between the fire button and they actual violent act? People shot un-recallable missiles and artillery that doesn't land for minutes but does sophisticated tracking and maneuvering in the meantime. Is that a drone?

Stop with the stupid nitpicking. You should already know the reason why we have humans in our war machines is that they are the ones with the authority to designate targets and deploy the weapon against the designated target.

It's not stupid nitpicking at all. If I designate Jon Doe as a target and have a swarm of drones do facial recognition the laws have to be clear enough to distinguish this from me putting a tracking device in Jon Doe's pocket and have a missile home in on that signal.

The counter-argument: it wouldn't be hard to design a system where a human remote-operator in Arizona is paid minimum wage to push a button whenever a screen in front of them turns red and says "FIRE".

Any regulation of lethal autonomous drones will require some nuance in the wording.

Also, what number of drones. At why point does a swarm become a WMD?

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.

How could a non-nuclear rocket do that?

You'd need an awful lot of them - London had about 500 hits by German V2 rockets which didn't have any appreciable impact on the course of the war.

Only if that rocket had a nuclear bomb on it. You'd be surprised how not powerful individual bits of munitions are. Sure a 2000 pound bomb sounds scary. But they work really well against point targets. Cities are not point targets.

https://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/air-s...

None of this matters because treaty compliance is just a function of who’s powerful enough to get away with what.

That’s only completely true if someone is strong enough to beat everyone else combined. I don’t think any country like that currently exists.

That assumes that your “posse” will jump in to help you. Not a great assumption to rely on.

The US is that strong, provided they don't have to fight in or near China or Russia. No one besides those three even has a seat at the table. China and Russia could probably defend their own territories, but projecting power is an entirely different can of worms.

This is backed up by the US not giving a toss about international law

But they would fight in or near China or Russia — I don't see any chinese or russian bases in Canada or Mexico.

> But they would fight in or near China or Russia — I don't see any chinese or russian bases in Canada or Mexico.

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 doubt anyone contests that point, least of all Lindemann: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr8ljRgcJNM

(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)

So then we just give up on all treaties?

That is current US policy yes.