Lethal autonomous weapon

Being "autonomous" has different meanings in different fields of study. In engineering it may refer to the machine's ability to operate without human involvement. In philosophy it may refer to an individual being morally independent. In political science it may refer to an area's capability of self-governing. In terms of military weapon development, the identification of a weapon as autonomous is not as clear as in other areas.[1] The specific standard entailed in the concept of being autonomous can vary hugely between different scholars, nations and organizations.

Various people have many definitions of what constitutes a lethal autonomous weapon. Heather Roff, a writer for Case Western Reserve University School of Law, describes autonomous weapon systems as "armed weapons systems, capable of learning and adapting their 'functioning in response to changing circumstances in the environment in which [they are] deployed,' as well as capable of making firing decisions on their own."[3] This definition of autonomous weapon systems is a fairly high threshold compared to the definitions of scholars such as Peter Asaro and Mark Gubrud's definitions seen below.

Scholars such as Peter Asaro and Mark Gubrud are trying to set the threshold lower and judge more weapon systems as autonomous. They believe that any weapon system that is capable of releasing a lethal force without the operation, decision, or confirmation of a human supervisor can be deemed autonomous. According to Gubrud, a weapon system operating partially or wholly without human intervention is considered autonomous. He argues that a weapon system does not need to be able to make decisions completely by itself in order to be called autonomous. Instead, it should be treated as autonomous as long as it actively involves in one or multiple parts of the "preparation process", from finding the target to finally firing.[4][5]

Other organizations, however, are setting the standard of autonomous weapon system in a higher position. The Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom) defines autonomous weapon systems as "systems that are capable of understanding higher level intent and direction. From this understanding and its perception of its environment, such a system is able to take appropriate action to bring about a desired state. It is capable of deciding a course of action, from a number of alternatives, without depending on human oversight and control - such human engagement with the system may still be present, though. While the overall activity of an autonomous unmanned aircraft will be predictable, individual actions may not be."[6]

As a result, the composition of a treaty between states requires a commonly accepted labeling of what exactly constitutes an autonomous weapon.[7]

The oldest automatically-triggered lethal weapon is the land mine, used since at least the 1600s, and naval mines, used since at least the 1700s. Anti-personnel mines are banned in many countries by the 1997 Ottawa Treaty, not including the United States, Russia, and much of Asia and the Middle East.

Some current examples of LAWs are automated "hardkill" active protection systems, such as a radar-guided CIWS systems used to defend ships that have been in use since the 1970s (e.g., the US Phalanx CIWS). Such systems can autonomously identify and attack oncoming missiles, rockets, artillery fire, aircraft and surface vessels according to criteria set by the human operator. Similar systems exist for tanks, such as the Russian Arena, the Israeli Trophy, and the German AMAP-ADS. Several types of stationary sentry guns, which can fire at humans and vehicles, are used in South Korea and Israel. Many missile defense systems, such as Iron Dome, also have autonomous targeting capabilities. Automatic turrets installed on military vehicles are called remote weapon stations.

The main reason for not having a "human in the loop" in these systems is the need for rapid response. They have generally been used to protect personnel and installations against incoming projectiles.

Systems with a higher degree of autonomy would include drones or unmanned combat aerial vehicles, e.g.: "The unarmed BAE Systems Taranis jet-propelled combat drone prototype may lead to a Future Combat Air System that can autonomously search, identify, and locate enemies but can only engage with a target when authorized by mission command. It can also defend itself against enemy aircraft" (Heyns 2013, §45). The Northrop Grumman X-47B drone can take off and land on aircraft carriers (demonstrated in 2014); it is set to be developed into an Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) system.

Serbian Land Rover Defender towing trailer with "Miloš" tracked combat robot.

According to The Economist, as technology advances, future applications of unmanned undersea vehicles might include mine clearance, mine-laying, anti-submarine sensor networking in contested waters, patrolling with active sonar, resupplying manned submarines, and becoming low-cost missile platforms.[8] In 2018 the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review alleged that Russia is developing a "new intercontinental, nuclear-armed, nuclear-powered, undersea autonomous torpedo" named "Status 6".[9]

Russian Federation is actively developing artificially intelligent missiles,[10] drones,[11] unmanned vehicles, military robots and medic robots.[12][13][14][15][16]

Israeli Minister Ayoob Kara stated in 2017 that Israel is developing military robots, including ones as small as flies[17][18]

In October 2018, Zeng Yi, a senior executive at Chinese Defense Firm Norinco, gave a speech in which he said that “In future battlegrounds, there will be no people fighting,” and that the use of lethal autonomous weapons in warfare is "inevitable."[19] In 2019, US Defense Secretary Mark Esper lashed out at China for selling drones capable of taking life with no human oversight.[20]

British Army deployed new unmanned vehicles and military robots in 2019.[21]

US Navy is developing "ghost" fleets of unmanned ships.[22]

• Artificial intelligence arms race
• List of fictional military robots
• Slaughterbots

• Heyns, Christof (2013), ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions’, UN General Assembly, Human Rights Council, 23 (3), A/HRC/23/47.
• Krishnan, Armin (2009), Killer robots: Legality and ethicality of autonomous weapons (Aldershot: Ashgate)
• Müller, Vincent C. (2016), ‘Autonomous killer robots are probably good news’, in Ezio Di Nucci and Filippo Santoni de Sio (eds.), Drones and responsibility: Legal, philosophical and socio-technical perspectives on the use of remotely controlled weapons, 67-81 (London: Ashgate).
• Stuart Russell's campaign against LAWs
• Sharkey, Noel E (2012), ‘Automating Warfare: lessons learned from the drones’, Journal of Law, Information & Science, 21 (2).
• Simpson, Thomas W and Müller, Vincent C. (2016), ‘Just war and robots’ killings’, The Philosophical Quarterly 66 (263), 302-22.
• Singer, Peter (2009), Wired for war: The robotics revolution and conflict in the 21st Century (New York: Penguin)
• US Department of Defense (2012), ‘Directive 3000.09, Autonomy in weapon systems’. <2014 Killer Robots Policy Paper Final.docx>.
• US Department of Defense (2013), ‘Unmanned Systems Integrated Road Map FY2013-2038’. <http://www.defense.gov/pubs/DOD-USRM-2013.pdf%3E.
• The Ethics of Autonomous Weapons Systems (2014) Seminar at UPenn <https://www.law.upenn.edu/institutes/cerl/conferences/ethicsofweapons/schedule-required-readings.php>