ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (Moderator) (09/24/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Tuesday, September 23, 1986 6:12PM
Volume 7, Issue 17
Today's Topics:
Re: 1st priority of gov't is defense or human rights??
Re: Dangerous jokes at LLL et al
The Peace Testimony
Re: TV news erratum: LLL -> Sandia Labs
Towards an effective defintion of "autonomous" weapons
Towards an effective defintion of "autonomous" weapons
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 86 08:40 EDT
From: "J. Spencer Love" <JSLove@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA>
Subject: Re: 1st priority of gov't is defense or human rights??
> Date: 22 Sep 1986 1210-PDT
> From: Rem@IMSSS
> Subject: 1st priority of gov't is defense or human rights??
> Recently somebody on ARMS-D said the primary purpose, top priority, of
> any government is defense (actually several people said it).
> But in a speech recently, Ronald Reagan seemed to contradict this,
> he claims the main purpose of a government, the justification for
> its existance, is human rights. Is he speaking without thinking again?
Depends on your context and terminology. Whose human rights? And what
are human rights, anyway? I will respond to what you seem to be talking
about. If I am mistaken, please provide some context from this speech
-- which I didn't hear -- to clarify what you are talking about.
Consider two perspectives:
1) the primary purpose of a government, as an autonomous entity (a
debatable model, but attractive) is generally to preserve its own
existence. Thus, from the government's point of view, defense is the
highest priority, from threats both internal and external. This defense
can take many forms, from manipulating public opinion to dropping bombs
to changing its behavior to avoid irritating those who might terminate
that government's existence.
2) A government can continue to exist only with the consent of the
governed. In practice, this can be biased quite a bit, since
authoritarian regimes can make it more attractive in the short term to
individual citizens to put up with an obnoxious government rather than
be shot or sent to the gulag. On the other hand, collective action by
either dissatified citizens or external governments can upset the
applecart. Really dissatisfied citizens can be arbitrarily inefficient
at defending their country, for example. The advent of autonomous
weapon systems, the concentration of the power to kill everyone in the
world into the hands of a few, and the (hopefully science fictional)
possibility of having a single world government (thus eliminating
"external" forces) are factors that may increase the bias even further.
From the citizen's point of view, the human rights of those selfsame
citizens (including defending the citizens from threats both indigenous
and alien) are the reason that they collectively permit their government
to exist.
In this country, for purposes of "human rights", we mostly don't
distinguish between citizens and non-citizen residents or even visitors.
This is partly because it is impractical to verify citizenship first and
shoot later, since there are a number of important ways in which we
discriminate against non-citizens. However, citizenship is not even
necessary in all areas to collect welfare, which is debatably a "human
right".
It is perhaps a rhetorical device to confuse human rights of persons on
American soil with human rights of persons in other places. It requires
taking a long view to argue, "if we observe human rights of persons in
other places and encourage their governments to do so then eventually
the people of the world will mostly be friendly to us and that will be
to our benefit." Too long a view for incumbent politicians who rarely
seem to think farther ahead than the next election -- six years for
Senators is about the max. The view may even be wrong, and people in
future centuries may laugh at us for thinking such naive and idealistic
thoughts.
Nevertheless, it seems a worthwhile thing to say, and even if
governments give only lip service to the concept, it is part of our
national rationalization for the legitimacy of our government, and it's
nice to think that our government hasn't entirely forgotten it.
------------------------------
Date: Tue Sep 23 11:34:43 1986
From: styx!mcb@lll-crg.ARPA (Michael C. Berch)
Subject: Re: Dangerous jokes at LLL et al
> From: Rem@IMSSS
> Subject: Dangerous jokes at LLL et al
>
> Item 1: a few years ago Ronald Reagan made an "off mike" joke about
> declaring the USSR illegal and bombing it in 5 minutes. A later rumor
> says the USSR put their pacific fleet on alert as a result, although
> I haven't heard that confirmed.
>
> Item 2: just now on the news I heard about four security guards at
> Laurence Livermore Labs which teased a sleeping guard by shooting at
> him with blanks, but the guard woke up and thinking he was under attack
> he shot back, wounding two of the other four guards.
The incident in question did not occur at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, but instead at Sandia National Laboratories (Livermore),
which is adjacent to LLNL but under completely separate management,
and under a different government contract. Security at SNL is provided
by a private security firm under contract to the lab; security at LLNL
is provided by Protective Service Officers, who are police officers.
This doesn't attempt to refute Rem's analogy, but it's important to
set the record straight.
Michael C. Berch
ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA
UUCP: {ihnp4,dual,sun}!lll-lcc!styx!mcb
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 86 15:15:09 EDT
From: Bruce Nevin <bnevin@cch.bbn.com>
Subject: The Peace Testimony
Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind,
a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice.
--Spinoza
Peace is not a victory of one side over others. Such a state--indeed,
any fixed state--has repeatedly proven impossible to maintain against
the natural course of change in human affairs. Rather, peace is an
active homeostasis to which the hitherto contending parties mutually
contribute. It is the expression of their participation in a larger
unity. And assuredly peace, under this definition, has obtained many
times between and among human social systems. Only, never on the scale
required of us today.
"Confidence" is an operative word in Spinoza's definition.
The following is an edited version of a contribution originally sent
last May by Lynn Gazis, <SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>, under the heading `how to
ensure our survival'. It appeared in digest 6.98 of June 5. It
elicited no response then. I resubmit it in this modified form because
the Peace Testimony, as this understanding is called among Friends
(Quakers), deserves to be better known and requires careful
consideration before it is understood.
> Before I respond to REM's question [how to ensure our survival], I will
> state the basic moral premises I start from. I expect that most of you
> will consider them unpractical, and debating them may be beyond the
> scope of this interest group, but since they affect the practical
> policies I would advocate I feel it is important to state them.
>
> As a Quaker, I believe that I am forbidden by God from "all outward wars
> and strife and fightings with outward weapons for any end or under any
> pretext whatsoever." So ultimately I would not make it my goal that
> wars may be fought more safely, but that we may all live in that power
> which takes away the occasion of war. So in the long run what I must
> do, to ensure our long term survival and to be faithful to God, is to
> answer to that of God in everyone, so that all may come to walk in the
> Light.
>
> But I do not expect that we will reach that point any time soon . . . I
> have to conclude that at this point we don't know any way to ensure the
> survival of the species, and the best we can do is to try to make such a
> war less likely and hope that we can buy time to figure out how to do
> better.
>
> o I can't, consistent with the principles I mentioned above,
> support deterrence . . . Deterrence has been tried, and nations
> have built up big arsenals to prevent anyone from attacking
> them, but they have eventually had to go to war anyway.
>
> o Treaties have been made and leagues formed, but whenever a
> nation decides enough of its self-interest is at stake it
> ignores the treaty and refuses to recognize the decision of the
> international organization. . . . [However, i]nternational
> organizations like the UN . . . can help to avoid some wars by
> providing a face-saving mechanism for countries to make
> concessions to each other.
>
> o Communication may be helpful, but nations can do plenty of
> communicating and still have unreconcilable conflicts. . . . we
> can keep up exchanges that help us to be aware of each other's
> humanity. Those will not prevent us from going to war, but they
> will make it more likely that we go to war only when it is in
> our interest, rather than out of a warped view of the enemy. . .
> We can . . . reduce the chance of war due to accident or
> misunderstanding. We can continue to . . . improve our
> techniques for detecting violations of arms control treaties so
> that such treaties will be more practical.
>
> o Some people hope that scattering to space will solve the
> problem, but I see no reason to believe that, however vigorously
> we pursue the space program, enough of us can leave the planet
> soon enough to make a difference (though I do support the space
> program for other reasons).
[Many say there is every reason to believe we would simply export our
reluctance to build peace (homeostasis in higher-level unity). Others,
Carl Sagan and various astronauts for example, speak eloquently of the
transformative power of seeing Earth whole from space. How can the foot
argue with the hand?]
> o Eliminating nuclear weapons, even if such a treaty can be
> verified and enforced, won't solve the problem because other
> destructive weapons can be used. [As noted before in this
> forum, chemical and biological weapons are in many ways even
> more scary.] The same problem applies to technical solutions
> like SDI, even if it could be made sufficiently effective to
> stop the particular weapons it is [intended] to stop.
>
> o We should each look to our possessions to see whether the roots
> of war are there. [This refers to things that depend upon, and
> therefore foster, a war economy; things that come from, and
> therefore support, exploitation of people in third-world
> countries; things that by their symbolism or design reinforce in
> ourselves and others a militaristic point of view, such as war
> toys, and so on. At least since John Woolman persuaded Friends
> not to own slaves or anything that depended upon the slave
> economy, Quakers have advocated ridding oneself of possessions
> inconsistent with the Peace Testimony.]
>
> I do think that in the long term it *may* be possible to end war. Not
> conflict, for there has always been conflict and it is part of our
> nature. There has even always been some degree of violence, though
> different societies vary widely in the prevalence of violence. But
> the forms in which we solve conflicts change, either through advances
> in technology or through changes in laws, customs, and socialization.
> We do not practice cannibalism or slavery. And not all societies have
> fought wars. Not all people in our society consent to fighting wars,
> and, though it may be comfortable now for Quakers, Mennonites, and
> Brethren to be pacifist, our founders maintained their nonresistance
> in the face of incredible violence.
>
> I know of no arms race which has not ended in war. So I do not think it
> is less practical to hope to end war than to hope that deterrence will
> work indefinitely. But in the short run I recognize that we don't know
> how to end war, and I don't expect our nation to unilaterally disarm, so
> it is worth exploring methods of minimizing the chances of war and the
> destruction that it causes while I hope in the long run for its
> abolition.
>
> Lynn Gazis
> sappho@sri-nic
Bruce Nevin
bn@cch.bbn.com
(This is my own personal communication, and in no way expresses or
implies anything about the opinions of my employer, its clients, etc.)
------------------------------
Date: 23 Sep 86 16:26-EST
From: sam mccracken <oth104%BOSTONU.bitnet@WISCVM.arpa>
Subject: Re: TV news erratum: LLL -> Sandia Labs
-----
Sandia does highly classified research and is next next to a substantial
nuclear warhead depot.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1986 18:00 EDT
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Towards an effective defintion of "autonomous" weapons
From: Clifford Johnson <GA.CJJ at Forsythe.Stanford.Edu>
An "autonomous weapon" [should be] defined to be any weapons
system which is
de facto preprogrammed to take decisions which, under the law of
nations, require the exercise of political or military discretion.
It's not a bad first attempt, and I think it is necessary to get a
handle on this. With the realization that you have done us a service
in proposing your definition, let me comment on it.
I don't understand what it means for a weapon to "take a decision".
Clearly you don't intend to include a depth charge set to explode at a
certain depth, and yet a depth charge could "decide" to explode at 100
feet given certain input.
What I think you object to is the "preprogrammed" nature of a weapon,
in which a chip is giving arming, targeting and firing orders rather
than a human being. What should be the role of the human being in
war? I would think the most basic function is to decide what targets
should be attacked. Thus, one modification to your definition is
An "autonomous weapon" [should be] defined to be any weapons
system which is preprogrammed to SELECT targets.
This would include things like roving robot anti-tank jeeps, and
exclude the operation of LOW for the strategic forces.
But this definition would also exclude "fire-and-forget" weapons, and
I'm not sure I want to do that. I want human DESIGNATION of a target
but I don't want the human being to remain exposed to enemy fire after
he has done so. Thus, a second modification is
An "autonomous weapon" [should be] defined to be any weapons
system which is preprogrammed to SELECT targets in the absence of
direct and immediate human intervention.
But then I note what a recent contributor said -- MINES are autonomous
weapons, and I don't want to get rid of mines either, since I regard
mines as a defensive weapon par excellence. Do I add mobility to the
definition? I don't know.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1986 18:09 EDT
From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Towards an effective defintion of "autonomous" weapons
In thinking about this question, I believe that ARMS-D and RISKS could
perform a real service to the defense community. There is obviously a
concern among some ARMS-D and RISKS readers that autonomous weapons
are dangerous generically, and maybe they should be subject to some
legal restrictions. Others are perhaps less opposed to the idea.
It is my own feeling that autonomous weapons could pose the same
danger to humanity that chemical or biological warfare pose, though
they may be militarily effective under certain circumstances.
I propose that the readership take up the questions posed by Cliff's
recent contribution:
What is a good definition of an autonomous weapon?
What restrictions should be placed on autonomous weapons, and why?
How might such limits be verified?
Under what circumstances would autonomous weapons be militarily
useful?
Should we be pursuing such weapons at all?
How close to production and deployment of such weapons are we?
Maybe a paper could be generated for publication?
------------------------------
End of Arms-Discussion Digest
*****************************