Originally Posted by
racedo
Nope
But if you do not have controls and oversight then what happens when there is an accident. Operators know they will always be subject to independent review.
When you allow zero review you empower people to do as they wish, without recourse, where anything wrong is always justified or washed over. History has shown giving people power and they abuse and it is not just people in uniform.
I agree there should be a formal (statutory) means of review. It must be on a basis that ensures what is done is legal, holds the executive and responsible VSOs to account. IMHO it musto protect operators from being scapegoated, if something does go wrong, when they are following lawful orders and are not negligent in implementing them. It also has to ensure OPSEC - it may not be just risk to the RPVs or risk of losing track of targets, there may also be clandestine boots on the ground. Answering FOI requests from an organization that wants a complete ban isn't the way - however, that organization highlighting a lack of oversight, real or perceived, is legitimate
Personally, I have qualms about
some uses of
armed RPVs and even more so about autonomous AI. I do, however, accept that others will disagree - it is for democratic processes to settle on an agreed consensus. Preferably I think there should be an international convention on what constitute legitimate uses of RPVs and AI controlled military equipment. The current international laws are subject to wide and often conflicting interpretations. If the UK and US don't put their houses in order it is more difficult to justify condemnation of misuse by others. To quote Daniel Reisner, the former head of the IDF's international law division (ILD) in the Military Advocate General's Office, 'What we are seeing now is a revision of international law, if you do something for long enough, the world will accept it. The whole of international law is now based on the notion that an act that is forbidden today becomes permissible if executed by enough countries. ... International law progresses through violations.' (full article regarding legal advice to the IDF regarding operations in Gaza 2009-10 at
https://www.haaretz.com/1.5069101) We are now in the realms of how many collateral deaths make an attack legal or illegal - I am glad that I am not in a chain of command that has to take decision on that basis.
This is not an attack on the operators, some of whom are/have been members of this forum - they are acting in accordance with current domestic law, their own government's interpretation of international law, and the high standards of their respective services.