Geneva-Compliant Artificial Fighters and "the thin human line" of defence

Who is better, a man or a machine? A man with a machine, of course.

When you fly, you hope that at least the takeoff and the landing will be controlled by a computer, but also that a human, well-trained pilot (possibly two) will be there just in case, to supervise and control, to rectify and intervene, as "the thin human line" of defence against the machine's accurate and precise, total dumbness. Remember: if the landing is not as smooth as silk, that's because it's handmade. Sometimes pilots need to keep themselves trained.

What about fighters? War technology has evolved exponentially since the time of The Thin Red Line, only 150 years ago. But, apparently, we haven't seen anything yet:

"The US Army and Navy have both hired experts in the ethics of building machines to prevent the creation of an amoral Terminator-style killing machine that murders indiscriminately.

By 2010 the US will have invested $4 billion in a research programme into "autonomous systems", the military jargon for robots, on the basis that they would not succumb to fear or the desire for vengeance that afflicts frontline soldiers.

A British robotics expert has been recruited by the US Navy to advise them on building robots that do not violate the Geneva Conventions..... Their software would be embedded with rules of engagement conforming with the Geneva Conventions to tell the robot when to open fire."

[to read the full article, click on the title of this blog]

Again, things are changing quickly. Even the MAARS (Modular Advanced Armed Robotic System, in the picture) is "so last year".

Suggestion: amid all these frenzy transformations, let us hope someone somewhere decides to keep "the thin human line" of defence ready for action. There is going to be trouble.