Lethal Autonomous Weapons (Laws): Take the Human Out of the Loop - Argument That Humans Are Inferior to Killer Military Robot Soldiers, Saving Lives with Robotics, Concerns about Dig

The United States government needs to develop and employ lethal autonomous weapons (LAWS) on the battlefield. There are two main arguments that this paper will explore: first, robots are potentially more proficient than humans on the battlefield and second, the United States needs to employ LAWS because other countries already are and the U.S. needs to set the international example. Humans are inferior to robots in warfare and this paper will discuss historical examples in which humans exercised poor judgment in battle or were incapable of deciding due to the effects of combat. Humans are more expensive than robots and this paper show the economic benefits of employing LAWS. As a superpower, the U.S. needs to develop and employ LAWS to establish international norms and be prepared to propose international agreements. The U.S. is one of two countries that has a policy regarding LAWS and it is vague and over five years old. This paper describes the other countries that are currently developing and employing LAWS. Removing the human from the loop is an under represented argument because of legitimate concerns to include lowering the bar to entry to war, violating human dignity, and hacking. This study explores and ultimately refutes these concerns. Ultimately, the most important reason why LAWS should be adopted is that they will save lives.This compilation includes a reproduction of the 2019 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community.1. Introduction * 2. Main Body (Discussion/analysis) * 3. Humans Are Inferior to Robots Competing in the Global Arms Race * 4. Another Approach (Counter Arguments) * 5. Recommendations and ConclusionA Lethal Autonomous Weapon is a robot that is designed to select and attack military targets without direct intervention by a human operator. The idea of not having a human operator is called "human-out-of-the-loop." Autonomous weapons also have the capability of operating with a "human-in-the-loop" (like a drone and drone operator) or a "human-on-the-loop" in which a human operator supervises the targeting process and can intervene at any time during the cycle. Currently, the U.S. employs both human-in-the-loop and human-on-the-loop weapons in combat. Lethal autonomous Weapons are also called LAWS, LARS (lethal autonomous robots), robotic weapons, or killer robots. For these purposes, LAWS, robots, or lethal autonomous weapon will be used.This study will present a somewhat unrepresented argument, that LAWS should be developed and employed by the United States on the battlefield. There are several premises to support this conclusion. First, humans are overall inferior on the battlefield as compared to robots. Historically humans deal poorly with the traumatic effects of combat resulting in war atrocities, posttraumatic stress disorder, increased veteran suicide and homelessness; robots would not be negatively affected by combat like humans are. Additionally, human soldiers are more expensive in the long run than robots.Second, the United States needs to stay on the cutting edge of technology especially in warfare. History provides examples of the United States using ethically questionable strategies in war such as unrestricted submarine warfare and strategic bombing, both in WWII, without having had the chance to fully examine the potential ramifications of those strategies prior to the heat of conflict. Moreover, other nations are already employing LAWS. The United States needs to lead the development of these weapons in terms of technological capabilities and ethical standards so that an international agreement can be achieved before they are misused by another nation.