An example of the issues raised by 'televiolence'
Tuesday, August 4, 2009 by Technoculture and New Media
This article popped up on BBC online yesterday (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8182003.stm) and, for me, it's a perfect example of the challenges posed by 'televiolence'. What happens when humans are removed from the field of battle and operate warfare technology remotely, especially when the technology becomes "intelligent" enough to make its own decisions in reaction to what it encounters? The article refers to the problems of discriminating friend from foe and assessing "proportionality". But for me, it implicitly raises murkier questions still about ethical distancing and the question of further desensitizing military agencies to the violent consequences of warfare.
As reported by Jason Palmer, Noel Sharkey claims: There are basic and by implication inviolable tenets of warfare. Wow, so lofty a justification!!!!!!!
He says the problem with robots is: "Robots are not bright enough to be called stupid” which is stating the obvious.
• Hey Noel Sharkey, there is a problem with war … period! Don’t criticize AI or robotics for perceived ills.
Sharkey continues by saying "there's no objective calculus of proportionality in warfare - it's just a decision (tactical warfare derived from military intelligence/strategy) that people (the military) make". From the book American Culture of War by Adrian R. Lewis, General Holland Smith of the United States Marine Corps recommends: “Hit quickly, hit hard and keep on hitting” as suitable amount of military force.
I can’t imagine there ever will be "proportionality" in human warfare, can you? (In every war there is civilian casualty euphemistically known as ‘tactical error’).
That is the nutshell.