The convoy of scientist Mohsin Fakhrizadeh’s vehicles was passing through the outskirts of the capital. He was considered to be Iran’s most senior nuclear scientist and was under the strict guard of the security Robots Fight.
After some time Fakhrizadeh’s car was attacked. The bullets fired and he died. This was not a normal attack.
A senior official present on the spot said that there was no attacker. The bullets were fired with machine guns in a car but there was no one operating the machine guns. Another Iranian official said that the machine gun was being controlled through artificial intelligence.
‘Computer-controlled machine gun’. It seems to be part of the Hollywood-inspired storyline from the “Killer Robot” series. Where there is a machine that can think and can also shoot.
But is it possible? If it is, then another question arises that in the coming days, robots will be face to face instead of soldiers even in the battle?
Will robots fight in the war?
“We are talking about a system that has the capability to set and set goals without the help or direction of any human being,” says Hyder Roff, senior research analyst at John Hopkins University in the United States.
It has to be understood here that when it comes to the use of robots in the war, the word on the tongue of the experts is ‘Autonomous’. That means giving the machine the power to take its own decisions. There has been a debate about this. The scope of these weapons is also large. They come from primary level weapons to terminators. Hyder says that such weapons still exist today.
She says, “We have sea tunnels, a variety of ground tunnels, cyber technology and cyber weapons. They are autonomous. Then there is Israel’s anti-radiation missile Harrop. It is said that after launch it is based on signals Decides to attack. You can deploy in automatic mode by directing the Patriot missile. “
Many people may be surprised by the idea of using “killer robot” in the war, but the truth is that such technology is still being developed all over the world.
Hyder Roff says, “China wants to strengthen its military. They are automating their naval ships and submarines. Israel is looking to improve ground weapons such as tanks and cannons. Russia also spends a lot of money on ground equipment.” Is doing. America’s interest is everywhere. Airforce, from airbase systems to missiles. Britain also wants to increase the capacity of its Air Force and Navy. “
Machine can make mistake!
He says, “There is this fear that technology can take wrong decisions. It can take the lives of people who should not be killed. It is right to worry about it. If the soldier is a human, then his goals And it is his responsibility to differentiate between innocent people. But a machine will not always make such a difference with success. Now the question is how much risk can be taken about it. Some people will say that there is no scope for risk. Should. I do not agree with this idea. In my opinion, this technology should be used only when citizens not participating in the war are less vulnerable to the use of the human army. “
In Tom’s opinion, there are some fronts of war where more risk can be taken. He says that you imagine a situation where a fighter is a pilot in a plane and he has 20 or 30 automatic systems. In the place where they are in the sky, there is no one else but the enemy. You will see how the automated system succeeds in such a place. It is also safe because there are no civilians, ie ordinary citizens. “
Another argument is made in favor of deploying automated Robots Fight which is more practical. Tom says that the genie has come out of the bottle. If you do not make such weapons, do not make your enemies.
What will be the strategy?
Tom Simpson says, “When such weapons are banned or advocated for self-control, the question should be asked what will the world be like after 20 years? There will be some countries that will have such an automated system and Our army will not have such a capability to defend itself. I think in that case people will tell the governments that the decision to self-control was wrong. The first duty of the government is to secure the country. Those responsible governments are no first use. The policy means that the policy of not using such weapons first can be adopted. “
This is the same strategy that can remind you of the nuclear weapons race of the 20th century. But another question is asked, why do you need to make the same weapon to counter the danger?
Also Read: BILLIONAIRE ELON MUSK’S GIRLFRIEND GRIMES WANTS TO DIE ON MARS
