Author: JUSTIN CONSALVO

The article by The New York Times, “Killer Robots Aren’t Science Fiction.  A Push to Ban Them is Growing,” was particularly interesting to me because I am also seeing technology change law enforcement.  The article discusses a conference by the United Nations discussing the current and future concern for artificial intelligence weapons.  There were parties both for and against this technology, with the United States and Russia as the most notable countries being for.

First, this article is discussing weapons that use artificial intelligence to think on their own and discriminate targets on their own.  This is not the same as human controlled drones such as the predator where the decision to engage is on the person controlling it.  There was and is an argument that human controlled drones have a massive disconnect from valuable interpersonal connection that is involved in warfare.  This only increases when the decision to take a life is in the hand of articulation intelligence.  I agree with this idea.  In both the military and law enforcement there are times when you can legally engage a target, but due to judgement you don’t have to.  I believe this type of discretion would be removed with the use of artificial intelligence weapons when the weapon/machine has a controlled set of parameters in which it works off of.  I think emotion is a huge part of war that is necessary to create fear of another war.  I believe this will take that emotion out of warfare.

Second, a leading justification for this is to prevent the loss of innocent lives.  Just like in the civilian labor force, technology takes the places of workers.  With artificial intelligence weapons, less/no soldiers will have to risk their live in conflicts.  At first that sounds amazing.  I would argue this point as one of the major deterrents of war is that policy makers do not want to risk the lives of their country’s men and women.  With no lives at stake I fear policy makers will become more aggressive with the use of their armaments.  I think this will lead to more deaths but on the opposition instead of both sides.  

I do think that these weapons are innevitable, if not already here.  There is a reason why the United Stated and Russia opposed discussions of stopping research/production of artificial intelligent weapons.  Clearly they have the technology while others do not and want it as an advantage.  Could this be similar to the nuclear arms race with artificial intelligence?

With recent discussions in class about alliances and NATO and BRICS being on the forefront of the news, I found the Quad Alliance referenced in the Washington Post article particularly interesting. This is my first time hearing of the Quad Alliance of the United States, Japan, India and Australia, but from the article it seems that could be common as it is not a highly active alliance.

The purpose of this Quad Alliance to “maintain a ‘free and open Indo-Pacific.’” Marlow (Author of the article) also states that it’s priority is to counter China’s rise. This alliance was created in 2007 following a tsunami in the Indian Ocean, which led to military exercises involving all countries. The alliance has been in and out since then, but has recently become more active due to President Trump’s stance against China, the origin of the coronavirus and the aggressive behavior of China against Taiwan and that region. With the Indian Ocean and South China Sea so crucial to global trade, this alliance has potential to make a difference in the near future.

It is clear that the Quad Alliance is a response to China, but should China be worried? Clearly China has its sight on Taiwan and view any interference as a threat. I do not believe China should view this alliance as an immediate threat due to lack of activity, BRICS and self preservation. As stated above, besides the military exercises back in 2007, the alliance has not posed any direct threats to China. India and China have been apart of the recently growing alliance of BRICS. This combines with India being adjacent to China will most likely limit any threats the Quad would propose against China. Lastly, both India and Japan are in close proximity to China. Any steps the Quad takes to prevent the rise of China could effect them worse than Australia and the United States. Marlow state’s that this could be a potential NATO in Asia, but as of now it appears that BRICS has the most current and powerful alliance in Asia.

I would like to focus on The New York Times reading, “The U.S. and Russia Need to Start Talking Before It’s Too Late.” This opinion focuses on both the unknown of Russia’s plans and the armament of Ukraine by the west, specifically the United States. This article was written in July 2022 and clearly things have changed since. I will state that I am not a fan of the half in and half out policy the United States is taking in this war in regards to supplying armament, but not man power.

The United States being a hegemony has become a gift and a curse. It has allowed the country to prosper, but is expected to contribute and assist more with foreign policy. It is clearly displayed in the article where the author states the United States has pledged $24 billion while Europe has pledged $12 billion together. I would argue that Europe is at more of a threat due to their location and should be providing much more assistance than the United States. As of July 2023, the Council on Foreign Relations reports that the United States has given more than $75 billion in assistance. (https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts). This is more than the recent EU plan to provide $18 billion a year to Ukraine through 2027. (https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-plans-e72-billion-of-new-common-debt-to-aid-ukraine/). This is all while the United States is suffering from inflation domestically.

I am concerned with the armament that the United States is also providing. This article discusses Biden’s plans to arm Ukraine to defend and to not escalate the war. The United States has defied that by recently approving their F-16 fighter jets to be sent to Ukraine through Denmark and the Netherlands. These may deter the Russians from air attacks, but as history shows Putin does not back down and these will possibly only escalate the war to another level. The United States has also sent artillery systems, rocket launch systems, anti air missiles, howitzers, mortars, various Unmanned Aerial System platforms, helicopters, javelins and many other small arms. This assistance outweighs all other countries contributions combined.

As I stated above, I do not like the amount of assistance we are giving. First, it is because domestically the United States is not in the best shape and this money can be used to benefit Americans. Second, we have seen this before. When the United States assisted the mujahedeen during the Soviet invasion, they provided Stinger missiles to counter Soviet aircraft. This was advanced technology at the time, something the United States regretted. After that invasion and the build up of the Taliban and Al-Qaddafi, the United States went on a witch hunt to recover the hundreds of stingers in Afghanistan with the fear of them being used against the United States. Hopefully all this armament provided will not repeat this situation whether it ends up in the hands of Ukraine, Russia or another country.