The Rise in Autonomous Technology, Autonomous Weapons Systems, and Robot Weaponry: Enhancing Securit

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 09 Issue: 10 | Oct 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

The Rise in Autonomous Technology, Autonomous Weapons Systems, and Robot Weaponry: Enhancing Security or Increasing Threats? An Ethical Analysis

1Assistant Professor, Dept. of Math, CS & IT, Lindenwood University, MO, USA 63301 2Professor, Dept. of CS, University of Missouri – St. Louis, MO, USA 63121 ***

Abstract - Nation states - some secretly, some openly - are financinginrobot weaponsandautonomousweaponssystems (AWS). Novel technologies have combined with countries’ security worries to give escalation to a new arms race. Becauseacountrycanentertheautomatedweaponsuniverse in a way that is impractical for nuclear weapons, states are trying to make their existence known in both the offline and online battlefields.Wehavepointedoutseveralreasonsforthe rise in autonomous systems and robotics. We have also ethicallyanalyzedtheseongoingdevelopments,focusingboth on global security and global threats with explanations for AWS development/deployment and suggestions based on the ethical analysis and explanation. Also, we have outlined the major concerns with respect to such robot weapons, autonomous technology, and autonomous weapons systems

Key Words: Autonomous Technology, Autonomous Weapons Systems, Ethical analysis,Global Threat,Robot Weapons, Security

1. INTRODUCTION

Nationsarepreparingforthebattlefieldsincyberspaceand on land space. Cyber warfare is handled by computer professionals, who also are increasingly involved in the physical battlefield, deploying numerous autonomous technology(AT)andautonomousweaponssystems(AWS). AWS includes robot weaponry (RW), network connected battlefielddevicesandremote-controlleddevices.TheAWS androboticsindustryareopenlysupportedbymanynations involving the United States, UK, Russia, China, and South Korea.TheUnitedStatesDepartmentofDefense’s(US-DoD) “UnmannedSystemsIntegratedRoadmap2013–2038[1]” setsaclearandconciseplanfortheupcoming20years,to developanddeploysuchweaponsinair,land,andsea.

ThefutureofAIisintimatelyconnectedtothefutureofAWS, RWandAT.ThedevelopmentofAutomatedTechnologyhas enabledthedevelopmentofAutonomousWeaponsSystems. Automated(driverless)vehiclesmakeiteasiertotransport devicesandsupplies,withreducedrisksofhumantroops. The use of robot weapons and autonomous weapons systemsarecurrentlymostusefulinlandbattlefields.The current international and intra-national laws and treaties arenotkeepingpacewiththedevelopmentofnewweapons

technologies, [2] which ultimately encourages the proliferation cyber weapons and autonomous battlefield technology.

There are arguments for both and against the use of AWS andATinwar[3].ThesupportforAWSisgenerallybythe defense community, which advocates for these weapons seekingmilitaryadvantages(benefittounmannedsystems: perception, planning, studying, human-robot interaction, natural language understanding, and multi-agent coordination). Other supporters emphasize moral justifications for using the technologies. An open letter published in July 2015 warns the use of AWS as the third revolutioninwarfare(behindgunpowderandnucleararms). The global society has agreed to bounds on mines and chemical/biologicalweapons,butatreatyonlimitingAWS hasnotyetbeenconsummated

Ourstudyisarrangedasfollows.In SectionII,wegiveabrief overviewofbackgroundstudy,earlierworksandattemptto identifytheneedandusageofRW/AWSinvariousdomains. In Section III, we discuss the rise of AWS in the present context(includingtheirglobalthreatandworries)followed bytheethicalanalysis(oftheriseofbothRWandAWS)in Section IV.WeanalyzetheglobalriseintermsofSecurityor Threat (for the entire world) in Section V with ethical analysisoftherisein Section VI aswellasconclusionsand summary of our study in Section VII. In Section VIII, we presentedthepossiblefuturescopeofthestudyofAWS.

2. BACKGROUND STUDY

In [3], A. Etzioni & O. Etzioni (2017) figure merits and demerits of Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS). “This technologyhaspromotedadebateamongmilitaryplanners, roboticists, and ethicists about the development and deployment of munitions that can perform increasingly advanced functions, including targeting and operation of force,withlittleornomortaloversight”.Therearearguments in support of AWS and in opposition to AWS on moral grounds.ThesupportforAWSfallsintotwoareas:military advantagesofAWSandmoralapologiesforusingthem.An openletter(inJuly2015)calledforabanonAWS;signatories included Elon Musk, Steve Wonzniak, Stephen Hawking, Noam Chomsky, and over three thousand robotics and AI

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 09 Issue: 10 | Oct 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

experimenters) at an international joint conference on artificial intelligence (AI). The letter warns that AWS constitutes a third revolution in warfare, after gunpowder and nuclear arms. The letter emphasizes that AI has the implicit to help humanity, but that “military AI arms” can blemishAI’scharacterandreducetheunbornbenefitsofAI.

In [4], I. Bode & H. Huelss (2018) define two studies on constructivist models of standard rise: to begin with, constructivistapproachesbenefitthedeliberativeoverthe practicalriseofstandards;andmoment,theyoveremphasize central standards instead of moreover accounting for proceduralstandards.Expandingonthesecritiquespermits researchers to respond to a critical break in research: examinehowbenchmarksofproceduralfittingnessevolving inthedevelopmentandusageofAWSfrequentlycontradict fundamental standards and open legitimacy desires. The authorsalsolaidoutthecontoursofainvestigateprogram ontherelationshipofstandardsandAWS,contendingthat AWScanhaveprincipalnormativeconsequencesbysetting novel values of fitting activity in international security policy. They too addressed the emergence of procedural standards through advancing AWS and resulting tries to constructivistapproachesininternationalrelations(IR).

In [5], E. Winter (2018) recognized the problem in the context of autonomous vehicles driving beneath the regulation of household law; governments appear to be stirringtowardsautilitarianarrangementtoproblemswith theunavoidableharmthatwillhappenwhenthevehiclesare deployed in large numbers. Autonomous machines are movingquicklyfromsciencefictiontosciencereality,where thisautonomoustechnologydefinesthe highlightasitcan work “independently of human control”. Subsequently, societymustconsiderhow“decisions”areabletobemade byautonomousmachines.Thematterisespeciallyintensein circumstances where hurt is inevitable, no matter what courseofdeedistaken.Thisleadsonetoaddresswhether utilitarianism ought to be transposed into the setting of autonomous weapons which might soon operate on the battlefield beneath the look of humanitarian law. The contentionhereisthatitoughttobecausehumanitarianlaw incorporatesthemostruleof‘proportionality’.

In [6], D. Amoroso & G. Tamburrini (2020) proposed relinquishing the quest for a one-size-fits all result to the Meaningful Human Control (MHC) issue in favor of an appropriately separated approach,that may helpsidestep currentstumblingblocks.Thereasonwastosupplyreaders with a compact account of progressing academic and diplomatic debates about approximately independence in weapons systems, that is, about the moral and legitimate acceptabilityoflettingaroboticsystemunleashdamaging dynamisminfightingandmakelife-or-deathchoiceswithout anyhumanintervention.Thecreatorshighlightthepivotal role played by the robotics research community to start ethicalandlawfuldebatesaboutindependenceinweapons systems.Itispointedoutthatthesedifferentconcernshave

been mutually taken to care the thought that all weapons systems,includingautonomousones,oughttostaybeneath MHC.Atlast,itisemphasizedthattheMHCthoughtsloom huge on shared control approaches to adopt in other ethically and legally penetrating application domains for roboticsandartificialintelligence.

In[7], M. Skerker et al. (2020) investigatedtheancestries ofvariousdeontologicalconcernswithAWSandtoconsider whethertheseconcernsareunmistakablefromanyconcerns thatalsoapplytolong-distance,human-guidedweaponry. Artificialagents,ofwhichAWSareoneillustration,cannot realizethevalueofhumanlife.Tonumerous,theawareness ofAWSmurderinghumanbeingsisbizarre.Yetfaultfinders havetroubleexplainingwhyitoughttomakeacriticalmoral differenceifahumancombatantismurderedbyanAWSas contradicted to being murdered by a human combatant controlling a comparative machine. A human combatant cannothandoverhisbenefitsoffocusingonfoecombatants toarobot.Hence,thehumanduty-holderwhodeploysAWS breachesthemartialcontractbetweenhumancombatants and disrespects the targeted combatants. The creators moreover considered whether this novel deontological complaint to AWS shapes the groundwork of few other popularyetdefectivedeontologicalcomplaintstoAWS.

In [8], N. Kshetri (2021) surveyed various aspects of computerethicsandfoundAWSandRWasoneofthemajor concerns in order to make a machine work without interveningandharmingothers.Thecurrenttechnological advancementswithdifferentethicsandneedofmoralityhas raisedconcernswhetherweaponsshouldbe human-guided or machine-guided. Theauthoralsodiscussedmachineethics in the context of AI, robotics, and fuzzy systems. We can expectmoresocialandethicalchallengesfromroboticsand AWSsoonerorlaterbecausetheroboticsandAWSindustry (including AI, MachineLearning, and use of robo-tanks) is emergingthesamewayascomputerandITindustrybusiness didearlier.Theauthoralsoconcludedthatsupportersand non-supporterofAWSand“robotarmy”bothhavetheirlegal agenda, but unless they can be utilized for “constructive works and emergency” help like natural disasters (rather thaninwars,attacks,andweapons).

In[9], R. Sparrow (2016) concludedthatinspiteofthefact thatthetheoreticalestablishmentsofthethoughtthatAWS areweaponsthatarecriminalinthemselvesareweakerthan critics have sometimes kept up, they are nonetheless sufficient enough to support the request for a ban of the improvementanddeploymentofsuchweapons.Ifourmain consideration is to reduce the number of noncombatants passing, it becomes simple to assume AWS being ethical: they would essentially have to be better than human creaturesatrecognizingbetweenlegitimateandillegitimate targets in few given domains Be that as it may, if we are concerned with what we owe noncombatants and others whoarenothonestlysubjecttolethalforce,thenthemerely statisticsformofdiscriminationachievablebyrobotsmaybe

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 09 Issue: 10 | Oct 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

missing.Thecreatormoreoverfocusesoutthatthelineof argumentcreatedhereisstillequaltothetaskofjustifyinga worldwidetreatyforbiddingthebroadeninganddeployment of AWS on the grounds that such arms are “evil in themselves”.

In [10], K. M. Sayler (2020) of Congressional Research Service(CRS)updatedtheUSpolicyonlethalautonomous weapon systems (LAWS) and also raised some potential questionsfortheU.S.Congress.Since2014,theUnitedStates hasparticipatedininternationaldiscussionsofLAWSunder theUNConventiononCertainConventionalWeapons(UN CCW)whichisnowaGroupofGovernmentalExperts(GGE) taskedwithobservingthetechnological,military,ethicaland legal dimensions of LAWS. Around 30 nations and 165 nongovernmental organizations have entitled for a preemptive prohibition on LAWS due to ethical concerns, including operational risk,accountability for practice,and compliance with the proportionality and peculiarity requirements of the commandment of war. The US governmentdoesnotcurrentlysustenanceaprohibitionon LAWS,andhastalkedethicalconcernsaboutthesystemsina white paper (March 2018), “Humanitarian Benefits of Emerging Technologies in the Area of Lethal Autonomous Systems”whichnotesthat“automatedtargetidentification, tracking, selection, and engagement roles can tolerate weaponstostrikearmedobjectivesmorepreciselyandwith lesshazardofcollateraldamage”.

In [11], J. Herkert, J. Borenstein, and K. Miller (2020), raised the lessons learned from the case included and the need to toughen the opinion of engineers within fat organizations.Theauthorspresentedthecrashoftwo737 MAX customer aircraft in late 2018 and early 2019, and succeedinggroundingoftheentirefleetof737MAXjets,that turnedaglobalspotlightonBoeing’spracticesandbeliefs The explanations for the smashes include several reasons (from design defects within the MAX’s new flight control software system to the lack of adequate monitoring of Boeing)butnoonehaswrittenontheethicalsignificanceof thecalamities,inparticulartheethicalaccountabilitiesofthe engineersatBoeingandtheFAAinvolvedindesigningand certifyingtheMAX.Theauthorsalsopointedouttheneedfor superiorinvolvementofprofessionalengineeringsocieties in ethics-related activities and for extensive emphasis on moralbraveryinengineeringethicseducation.Conclusions andrecommendationsincludevaluablelessonsforengineers and engineering mentors concerning the ethical responsibilitiesoftheprofession.Safetyisnotdiscounted, but careless engineering design in the tag of minimizing budgetsandadheringtoadeliverycalendarisanindicatorof ethicalblight.

In [12], J. Borenstein, J. Herkert, and K. Miller (2020), exploredtheethicalresponsibilitiesofdesigners,producers, operators,andcontrollersofthetechnologysincethedesign anddeploymentofautonomousvehiclesislikelytoproceed The authors centered on the ethical responsibilities

encompassingautonomousvehicles(AVs)thatthesepartners havetoensurethesafetyofnon-occupants,meaningpeoples whoarearoundthevehicles(AVs)whiletheyareoperating. The term “non-occupants” incorporates, but is not constrainedto,sidewalkspeoplesandcycleusers.Authors arealsocuriousinhowtodoleoutmoralresponsibilityfor thesafetyofnon-occupantswhenautonomousvehiclesare launchedinacomplex,land-basedtransportationframework Onewaytolookatquestionsaboutdutyforhumansecurity istoexamineopenstatementsbypublicsdrivingeffortsto mechanizevehicles.Theinsistenceofsecurityasapriorityis commonamongdefendersofautonomousvehicles.Clearly, this oughttobea priority,butitsupports questionsabout whosesecurityisbeingprioritized.Similar,andperhapseven moredisturbing,ethicalissuesarisewhentheautonomous vehiclesareusedinwarfare.

3 RISE in AT & AWS

Theprioritizationandriseofautomatedvehicles(privately ownedandusedbyone-family)ascomparedtothepublic transportation system (like automated trains from the 1980s)raisesinterestingethicalquestionsworldwide.The transportationindustrywithsuchpublictrainsandrailscan be an alternative to rapid expansion of AT in terms of protecting non-occupants and passengers [12]. This expansionandinvestmentofAT(byseveralprivatevehicle companiesandnations)isseenasadirectconnectionand expansionofAutonomousWeaponsSystemstoo.

Support for AWS and RW are also going on rapidly worldwidesayingthatitwillremainunderthemeaningful humancontrol(MHC)andforthesakeofmilitarysupportby the government and national advantages to counter the terroristgroups(thatareactiveinpartsofAsiaandAfrica). Thesupportersalsopointedoutthehumanbenefitswiththe useofAWSandRWincollaborationofnewtechnologieslike AIandRobotics.

Althoughtherearestrongargumentsfor“preemptiveban” ofAutonomousWeaponsSystems(AWS)ononeside,there is huge investment for AWS and the number of AWS is growingeveryyearontheotherside.Tocomeupwithan ethicalanalysisandfindtheexactreasonoftherise,wehave triedtosummarizethe“forandagainstofAWSdevelopment anddeployment”inthetablebelow:

Table-1: Comparisonsofthesupportargumentsand oppositionargumentsofAWS(basedontheBackground studypresentedinSectionIIofourpaper)[3][6][8][10]

AWS support arguments

i.Military(andalso national)advantages andsupport.

AWS opposition arguments

i.Thirdrevolutioninwar (aftergunpowderandnuclear arms).

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 09 Issue: 10 | Oct 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

ii.Moraljustificationsof usingAWS

iii.Humanbenefitsof newtechnologiesinarea oflethalautonomous weapons

iv.Lessriskofcollateral damageorcivilian casualties

v.Utilizedfor constructiveworksand innaturaldisasters

vi.Remainsunderthe “meaningfulhuman control(MHC)”

ii.CantarnishAI’sreputation

iii.Ethicalconcerns (operationalrisk,and accountabilityforuse).

iv.Proportionalitycompliance anddistinctionrequirements ofthelawofwar

v.Thefutureofarmedconflict duetoextensivedeployment ofAWS;thepossibilityof automatedaccidentalstartof hostilities,andtheaccidental escalationofhostilities

vi.AWS(includingAVs)are weaponsthatareevilin themselves

4. WHY THERE IS A GLOBAL RISE IN AT/AWS?

Although we cannot point out a single reason to be the primary concern of increasing AWS, we have pointed and discussedseveralaspectsbeforetherise.

I Global and nuclear arms race between nations: The strengthofAIacrosstheworldwhichshowsChinaonthe top(basedonresearchpublicationsandpatents),followed by US and other countries including Korea, Japan & India [13],haveclearlypavedthewayforanAIarmsracebetween nations.Thenationalpoliciesandstrategiesareimportant factorsforsuccessandtheleadingcountriesareinvesting billionsofdollarstoboosttheirnuclearandarmsbackups. InternationalcollaborationbetweenEuropeanandAmerican countries in arms and immunizations with government investment in R&D is now at the highest level than ever beforeinhistory.

II. Shortage of manpower, workers (cyber security personnel) in all industries worldwide: The actual impression on cyber threat levels in administrations is probablyduetotheglobal securityskillsshortagedespite organizationstakingsomestepstorecoverit[14].Thesteps bytheorganizationsinvolvetraining(36%),anticipationof furtherbendableworking(33%),andfinancingindiversity, equity,andinclusion(DEI)ingenuities(29%)alongwiththe usageofcloudservicesuppliers(38%),automationoflaborintensivetasks(37%)andgettingstafftangledinthird-party relationships(32%).AccordingtoClarRosso,CEOof(ISC)2 , “growth in international allocation of cybersecurity professionals is cheering, but in reality, we still need, and urgencyoftaskbeforeus,insufficientold-fashionedhiring practices, we should put public afore technology, and embraceremotelaborasanopportunity”.

III.Cyberastheemergingbase(otherthanair,land&sea)of warfare:TherecentwarofRussiaandUkrainefirststarted

with base as a cyberwar, that included disruption of governments and banking payments and with controlling each other government’s websites [15]. After a limited cyberwar, Russia invaded Ukraine in a conventional landbased war. This recent example illustrates that cyberwar, perhaps using autonomous Internet bots, may eventually leadtootherconventionalland-basedconflicts.

IV.Globalriseofonlinedevicesandusers:Theescalationin virtualdevicesintheratioofhandlers(almostanyhandler having five linked devices), is the main source of online crimes and cyber-attacks [16] [17]. As proposed by N. Kshetri & A. Sharma (2021) in the EAMV model (Ethics, Authentication, Monitoring and Verification), the Online learning to Online Watching (which includes Work From Hometoo)mustbeauthenticatedethicallywithmonitoring, andverificationfortheonlinedataandinformation.Thefour firewalls(EAMV)arerequestedasarequisiteinthesafety model to pawn the online attacks. This proposed model overcomes the escapes of existing security models with participationofcomputerethics,supervisingonlinerequest sourceandachievingtwo-wayauthenticationprocess.

V.Lessornouseof“computer/machineandcyberethics”: Although computer ethics is a explore arena entirely dedicated to addressing ethical defies brought up by informationrevolt,itcannotbedoneandaddressedasmuch expected till now [18]. Understanding and controlling secrecy, anonymity, and security in the info age are still selectedofthemostcompellingdifficultiessincethe80s.The disputeonthemoralstandingofartificialagentscommences with requirements an artificial agent must encounter to succeed as an autonomous agent with fewer or minimal habitofmachineethics.

Fig-1:Summaryofthefivemajorreasonsofglobalrisein AutonomousWeaponsSystems(AWS),Autonomous Technology(AT),andRobotWeaponry(RW)(basedon theSectionIVofourstudy)[13]-[18]

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 09 Issue: 10 | Oct 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

5. IS THE RISE OF AT AND LAWS ADDING SECURITY OR RISK?

The use of Autonomous Technology (AT) and Lethal Autonomous Weapons System (LAWS) is shaping an international debateonseveral grounds.AWStodayhasa direct relationship with artificial Intelligence (AI) and robotics (especially robot weaponry). It clearly shows the threats for global society during peacetime [19]. The jeopardies of AT for humanity are not restricted to its weaponizedprocedureduringanarmedstruggle.AT/AWS also bears threats for the entire sphere when it is not weaponized. It is potentially imaginable to tie AT and bioweapons,inthatwaycouldbeextentbyAWS.(Biological munitions are considered to blowout disease between people,wildlife,andflorasbyannouncingmicroorganisms andtoxins,suchasbacteriaandinfections.)

The use of Nuclear Weapons for defensive purposes by nationsaroundtheworldhasalreadybeendebatedinthe United Nations (UN), Human Rights Council (HRC) and severalotherbodies.Thesovereigntyinweaponssystemsis nowproceedingrapidly[20](someexamplesareUS-X47B, UK-Taranis, and French-nEUROn etc.). There are multiple operationalrisksincludinghumaninterventionspeedsand in the series of decision-making as a fail-safe instrument AWSarebroadlyviewedasharbingersofaparadigmswing incombatastheyareintelligenttomakejudgementsonthe consumption of lethal force lacking a humanoid in the decision-makinground.Fromanethicalopinionofview,itis debatedthatAWSviolatesfundamentalhumanvaluesand many kingdoms have called for a preventive prohibition exceptdualhomelands(IsraelandtheUS)havecontended thatsuchmachinesmaybidcertainremunerations

Robots(primarilyremote-controlled)areskilledofhunting and killing foes on their specific, as installed by military powersaroundtheglobeaswellasfurtherinnovativeones areontheirway. Theinitiationofautonomouswar-fighting engines has outstretched various alarms in the global communityandprogressivelyspawnsobjections[21].Ina statement to UN Council of Human Rights, the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions,Mr.ChristofHeyns,debatedthatthedisposition oflethalautonomousrobots(LARs)“couldbeobjectionable becausenopeadequatesystemofpermissibleaccountability can be formulated, and since robots ought not have the authorityoflifecycleanddeceaseoverhumanbeings.”The genuinethreatexistingbythesesystemsarisesintheformof relaxed,creeping,andcontinuousdrivetoautonomouswarfighting aptitudes in progressively difficult techno-logical struggles.

Questions about the deployment of autonomous weapons alonglandbordersinfuturetostoprefugeesorintheIsrael Palestine war advance further thoughtful issues. Autonomous weapons will increase a host of practical

difficulties, from causing pricey and geopolitically destabilizingmunitionsraces,totheirsusceptibilitytoponytrekking and spoofing, to empowering trivial group of publics - even individuals - to set free massive levels of destructionandkillinboundlessnumbers,constitutingan innovativekindofarmamentofbulkdestruction[22]. Issues from the perspective of government sovereignty and national/global safekeeping should be concentrated. To reflect the allegations of human rights as well as the scenariosofdemocracyandopen/freebeliefsintheeraof algorithms of viciousness, AWS possesses threats to the entireglobe

Theareaoflethalautonomousweaponsystems(LAWS)has gatheredcommunalattentionandbroadmediacoveragedue torenownedscientistsandtechnologistsmentionedabout theirdevelopmentanddeployment.Thecyberdefensetactic and model followed by best countries shortage computer and cyber ethics that are cast-off to safeguard people, countries, networks, and systems. These developments advance important and multifarious safety, legal, ethical, communal, and technological concerns discussed by researchers, NGOs, governments, intercontinental community however robotics public has stayed out of the differencedespitebeingaforemostproviderofautonomous technologies [23] [24]. The operation to end killer robots madebytenNGOsandheadedbytheHumanRightsWatch, necessitated a comprehensive, preemptive prohibition on thedevelopmentandpracticeoffullyautonomousweapons. Nations with innovative weapons manufacturing, such as Russia, the United States and Israel claim that there is no preconditiontonegotiateadistincttreatyforAWSandthe modernglobalcommandmentisenough

Fig-2:SummaryofthefivemajorreasonsofAWS/RWrise asthreat(basedontheSectionVIofourstudy)[19]-[24]

6. ETHICAL ANALYSIS OF THE RISE

ThereisnodoubtthattheuseofAWSisgrowingeveryyear and nations are investing billions of dollars for its development and deployment. The debate of AWS, Robot Weapons,andtheirethicsregardingtheirregulationunder internationallawisagrowingpublicdebate.Theincreasein useofAWS,RWbytheUSmilitaryhasdrawntheattention of several human rights organizations (including Human

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 09 Issue: 10 | Oct 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

RightsWatch),andbyseveralnationstatesincludingRussia andChina.Anyweaponthatdoesnotnecessitateahuman operator could be measured as an AWS, as DoD Directive defines “weapon system, as soon as activated, can handpickedandappointtargetswithoutmoreintervention”[25] [26].IftheUSisthefirstcountrytoadoptaformalpolicyon autonomyinweaponsystems,thisinitiativewillsetanalarm forallthenationstatesworldwide.Theextraordinary-profile public dispute over law and ethics of AWS kicked off in November2012aftertwounlikedocumentsreleasedbyUS DoDandtheinternationallawofarmedconflict(LOAC)-the organizationofworldwidelawalsoknownasinternational humanitarianlaw(IHL).

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) explainsAWSas“weaponsthatcanautonomouslyhandpick and object attacks, i.e., with independence in the serious roles of acquiring, tracing, selecting and infecting” [ICRC 2014]. AWS and the predator robots are also criticized because of their potential to degrade human dignity. The three key types of oppositions to AWS identified are, (i) disputesbasedonoutfitsandAWScapabilitytoconformto global humanitarian law; (ii) deontological opinions on necessity for human judgment and MHC, including disagreements on human dignity; (iii) explanations about theireffectsonworldwidestabilityandprobabilityofgoing towarfare[27].Therearealsofurtherweapons,andother know-hows,thatalsocompromisedindividualdignity.While therearequiteafewwaysinwhichAWScanbesaidtobein contradictionofhumandignity,theyarenotspecialinthis regard

Theclashbetweennationsformilitarygainismotivatingthe developmentofAWS.Aworldwidearmscontrolsettlement prohibitingAWSmayrepresenttheonlywaytothwartthis competition.Itisthusrequiredtoconsidertheethicalcase fortheexpansionanddeploymentofAWS[28].Thehidden issue regarding AWS ethics, concerns whether these armaments are companionable with the condition of humanity respecting our opponents underprops the ideologiesof jus in bello Kingdomsthathavethepowerto developorpitchAWSwillalsohavetotacklethequeryasto whethertheethicalcaseforanysuchcontractisworththe costofmilitarygain.Thereistheethicalcircumstancetobe madeforfunctioningsuchasettlementandaremattersfor extradialogueandargument.

OneargumentagainstAWSautonomouskillsisasfollows: WhenAWSdestroysanenemy,theagentofthecombatant's deceaseisnotaduty-bearer,andtherefore,beingkilledby AWSisaharmofthevictim’shumanrights.Withtechnical borders or constitutional ramifications, researchers have utteredprotestationtothedevelopmentanddeploymentof completelyAWS.Artificialagents,ofwhichAWSaresingle example,currentlyarenotconsideredagentsthatcanrealize the value of human life [29]. Scholars have raised ethical complaintstouseofAWS,advisingthatsuchsystemswould bevulnerabletohackingandmustnotbeemployedevenif

the governmental and methodological concerns could be focused.Iftheseargumentsarecorrect,anyindividualdutyholder who installs AWS breaches the martial treaty betweenhumanfightersanddisrespecttheaimedsoldiers

TheargumentsaboveassumethattheAWSaccuratelytarget andkilltheintendedcombatants.However,otherarguments pointoutthatAWSmayincorrectlykillnon-combatants,or haveotherunintended,unwantedsideeffects.Ifcomputer visualization were to outshine human visualization, AWS couldbecomesuperiortohumansoldiersatdiscriminating nationalsfromenemyfightersandengagingrightobjectives. However, that theoretical excellence in targeting has not beendemonstrated.Furthermore,themorecomplicatedthe software, the more probable it will have contaminations (typicallyponderedtobesoftwarevulnerabilities)thatcan cause calamities. Hacking during battle is likely to cause momentous destruction that presents fresh and objectionablerisks.Theonlypracticalwaytoreducethese hazards is certainly not to position AWS, though they are industrialized

Thehorizontalofspeculationintoarmyrobotics(including AWS and RW) is carried out by almost all nations either directly or secretly. Unlike human militaries, AWS are unaffected by emotional factors that root them to action outside of the command series [30]. Human soldiers sometimesrefusesunethicalorders;AWSareunlikelytodo so.

Table-2: SummaryoftheethicalanalysisandcaseofAWS rise,explanationwithsuggestionsforAWSarguments, development,anddeployment

Ref. EthicalAnalysis Explanation Suggestions

[26] Although humans may still be watching the functioning of the AWS/Autonomous Military robots, the nextsoundfootstep is to handover incrementallymore of the decisionmakingauthorityto the robot themselves. It is generallycontended that there are fascinating ethical surroundings to closethepracticeof Autonomous WeaponsSystems

TheUSarmy (alongwiththe armyofRussia, China,UK,and othernations) isaggressively constructing anddeployinga variabilityof AWS/AV/ roboticsystems, itisessentialto remain discoveringthe ethical measurements ofsuchsystems.

Wearenot alwayshorribly decentat presumingout whenandhow thelatest technological development willmanifest itself.If expansionsin AIdocarryon movingonward, reachingnearby tohumanbrain duplicating, somefears relatingtoAWS may conceivably reduce.

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 09 Issue: 10 | Oct 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

[27] Typesofconcerns toAWSare:(i) tech-based disputesand aptitudetoagreeto IHL,(ii) deontological disputesbasedon humanconclusion, (iii) consequentialist motivesabouttheir outcomeonglobal constancy&battle chance

[28] Theethicalcasefor allowing autonomous targetingistougher thanfaultfinders haveacknowledged andtherewouldbe somewhatethically challengingnearly suchpointing

Althoughthere havebeen blamesofthe relianceon humanoid dignityin opinionsagainst AWS,someof theseveral reasonsgivenin callsforthe stoppageof AWSisthatthey arebeside humandignity.

Theprincipleof dissimilarity recommends thatthepractice ofAWSis unethicalby integrityof lackingto displaysuitable respectforthe humanityofour enemies.

[29] Itcreatesa significantmoral modificationifa humanwarrioris destroyedbyAWS ascontrastingto beingkilledbya humansoldierand theseworriesare dissimilarfromany otherworries.

Onekeydriver tolethalAWSis thattheirusage disrespects theirhuman objectsby violatingthe martialtreaty betweenhuman fightersand defective deontological doubtstoAWS.

Itisresolved thatwhilethere arevarious waysinwhich AWScanbesaid tobeopposing tohuman dignity,theyare notdistinctive, itiswiserto drawonseveral sortsof oppositionsin disputesversus AWS.

AWSare missilesthatare “wickedin themselves”, theyare nevertheless enoughtothe taskof challenginga preventionof theexpansion anddeployment ofsuch armaments

Ahuman soldiercannot handoverhis privilegesof targetingan enemytoa robot.Hence, thehuman duty-holder whoinstalls AWSviolates themartial agreement

impermissible to position AWS to damage enemy combatants, since rival combatants cannot cede rights in contradiction of being hurt by AWS. Another objection to practiceofAWSisamissile malainse inbenefitoflackingto acknowledge the combatant’s humanity. Employing an armament that destroys without acknowledging the humanityofitstargetsisdisrespectfultothosetargets,and (some argue) to humanity as a total. Problem for this concernisextrasense,ifAWSwillbestrongerthanhumans at discriminating (legitimate and illegitimate) objects, employingAWScombatis courteous toobjects toprovide superior assurance of targets aggression (in case of surrenderorincapacitation).AWSareduty-bearers,andso opponentscannotcedeaclaim-righttoAWSincontradiction ofbeingtargetedbythem.AllAWSpurposesareillegitimate targets which is the major reason for AWS’s failure to acknowledgethehumanityofitstargets.

Theprinciplesof jus in bello,matterregardingtheethicsof AWS, worries the routine of these weapons with respect necessity for humanity. The relationship of admiration is absent, and their practice would be unethical, as AWS as “artificial agents” that select aims to assault. States or nationshavingcapacitytopositionAWSwilllikewisehaveto confrontthequeryastowhethertheethicalexampleforany worldwide treaty and the growth of these autonomous technology weapons are not sheltered to the entire world butinstead,theyareaseriousthreat.

8. FUTURE ISSUES

[30] Moralexplanations fortheplacement ofAWSis challengedbecause AWSareunaltered bymental dynamics

Manyethical complications areassociated withAWS incorporating direct consequencesof the independence giveninpicking andwinning objects

Softwarethat routesAWSwill havetobreak binarytroubles former-(i)the frameproblem and(ii)the representation problem.

There are matters and issues for further discussion and argument - and where, moreover there can be military advantageofusingsuchautonomousweapons,autonomous technology,androbotweaponry.Thereareotherweapons, andothertechnologies,(apartfromAWSandrobotics)that also compromise human dignity. It is sensible to draw on numerous types of protestations in arguments counter to AWS, and not only count on on a single concept. The prohibitiononautonomousweaponssystemsshouldbeat resident level or at international level is also another importantissueandoughttobedeterminedbytheUnited Nations (UN), Human Rights Council (HRC), and International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), International Humanitarian Law (IHL), and International Committee for Robot Arms Control (ICRAC), and other bodiesurgently.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Wewouldliketothankeveryonewhohelpedusdirectlyand indirectlyincompletingthismanuscript.

7. CONCLUSION

Inouropinion,AWSareethicallyunpleasantbecausethey areincapabletomakemoraljudgementsortoundertakefor moral reasons in deciding whom to destroy. It is

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Notapplicable.

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056 Volume: 09 Issue: 10 | Oct 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None.

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR

1Dr.NareshKshetri,NKshetri@lindenwood.edu

REFERENCES

[1] HomelandSecurityDigitalLibrary,UnmannedSystems Integrated Roadmap, FY2013-2038, https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=816179

[2] N. Kshetri (2017), “Cyber Strategy of Government of Nepal (GoN)” , SSRN Electronic Journal, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3552143,July27,2017

[3] A. Etzioni and O. Etzioni (2017), Pros and Cons of Autonomous Weapons Systems, Military Review MayJune 2017, PDFformwww.amazonaws.com

[4] I. Bode and H. Huelss (2018), Autonomous weapons systemsandchangingnormsininternationalrelations, Review of International Studies Vol.44,Part3,pp.393413., DOI: 10.1017/S0260210517000614, © British InternationalStudiesAssociation2018

[5] E. Winter (2018), Autonomous Weapons in Humanitarian Law: Understanding the technology, its compliancewiththeprincipleofProportionalityandthe roleofUtilitarianism, GroningenJournalofInternational Law, Vol6(1)DOI:10.21827/5b51d56abd19e,pp.183202

[6] D. Amoroso and G. Tamburrini (2020), Autonomous Weapons Systems and Meaningful Human Control: EthicalandLegalIssues, CurrentRoboticsReports(2020) 1:187-194, Springer,https://doi.org/10.1007/s43154020-00024-3,Publishedonline:24August2020

[7] M.Skerkeret.al.(2020),Autonomousweaponssystems and the moral equality of combatants, Ethics, and Information technology (2020) 22: 197 - 209, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-020-09528-0, Publishedonline:23February2020,©SpringerNature B.V.2020

[8] N.Kshetri(2021),“AsurveyofComputerEthics(w.r.t.to ArtificialIntelligence,RobotWeaponry,FuzzySystems, Autonomous Vehicles)”, International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE), ISSN: 2278-3075, DOI: https://doi.org/10.35940/ijitee.D8582.0210421, Volume-10,Issue-04,February2021

[9] R.Sparrow(2016),Robots andrespect: Accessingthe caseagainstautonomousweaponsystems, Ethics, and

International Affairs 2016 - pp.93 - 116. cambridge.org, DOI:10.1017/S0892679415000647,Publishedonline: 10March2016

[10] Congressional Research Service, K. M. Sayler (2020), page no. 2, Defense primer: US policy on lethal autonomous weapon systems, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1121848.pdf

[11] Herkert,J.,Borenstein,J.,andMiller,K.W.(2020).The Boeing 737 MAX: Lessons from Engineering Ethics, Science and Engineering Ethics (2020) 26:2957-2974, Volume26,Issue6,Pages:2957-2974,December2020, Springer Netherlands, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00252-y

[12] Borenstein, J., Herkert, J., and Miller, K. W. (2020). Autonomousvehiclesandtheethicaltensionbetween occupant and non-occupant safety, The Journal of Sociotechnical Critique, Volume 1 Issue 1, 1-14, November2020,DOI:https://doi.org/10.25779/5g55hw09

[13] GhiT,andSrivastavaA.(2021).TheGlobalArmsraceHownationscanavoidbeingleftbehind,ArthurDLittle PRISM / 1 / 2021, pp. 92 - 103, https://www.adlittle.com/sites/default/files/prism/Glo bal%20AI%20article.pdf

[14] P.Munacaster,Globalsecurityskillsshortagefallsto2.7 million workers, Infosecurity Magazine, 26 Oct 2021, https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/globalsecurity-skills-shortage/

[15] Martin Ciaran, Wednesday, March 2, 2022, Ukraine Crisis2022,CyberRealisminaTimeofWar. LawFare, https://www.lawfareblog.com/cyber-realism-time-war

[16] N.KshetriandA.Sharma(2021),“Areviewandanalysis of online crime in pre & post COVID scenario with respective counter measures and security strategies”, Journal of Engineering, Computing and Architecture (JECA),ISSN:1934-7197,VolumeXI,IssueXII,Page1333, DOI: https://doi.org/17.0002.JECA.2021.V11I12.200786.790 2,December2021.

[17] N. Kshetri (2022), “The Global Rise of Online Devices, Cyber Crime, and Cyber Defense: Enhancing Ethical Actions, Counter Measures, Cyber Strategy, and Approaches”, Dissertations. 1155. https://irl.umsl.edu/dissertation/1155,Departmentof Computer Science, UMSL, DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.33257.57446, May 2022.

[18] K. Miller and M. Taddeo (2020), The Ethics of InformationTechnologies, Routledge (imprint of Taylor

© 2022, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page830

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

& Francis Group), Publication date: 2020/8/13, ISBN: 978-1-4724-3174-5 (hbk), https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=A1LzD wAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT8&ots=tclRMqvKO9&sig=9vm ohQ0YSybjhvvQnN8wj0OZqFw#v=onepage&q&f=false

[19] R. Surber (2018), Artificial Intelligence: Autonomous Technology(AT),LethalAutonomousWeaponsSystems (LAWS)andPeaceTimeThreats, ICT4PeaceFoundation and the Zurich Hub for Ethics and Technology (ZHET), Scientific Advisor, ict4peace.org, https://ict4peace.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/02/2018_RSurber_AI-AT-LAWSPeace-Time-Threats_final.pdf

[20] F.Sauer(2016),Stopping‘KillerRobots’:Whynowisthe time to ban Autonomous Weapons Systems, Arms Control Today, October 2016, Volume 46, Number 8, https://www.armscontrol.org/taxonomy/term/510

[21] J.M.Beard(2014),AutonomousWeaponsandHuman Responsibilities, Digital Commons @ University of Nebraska - Lincoln, College of Law, Publications. 196. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/lawfacpub/196/

[22] P.Asaro(2019),AlgorithmsofViolence:Criticalsocial perspectivesonAutonomousWeapons, SocialResearch: AnInternationalQuarterly, Vol. 86, No. 2,Summer2019, page 537 - 555, https://peterasaro.org/writing/Asaro_AlgorithmsViole nce.pdf

[23] N.Kshetri&K.Miller(2021),“AStudyofCyber-Defense Ethics and Initiatives by Governments of Under Developing Nations: A study of selected countries”, International Journal of Analytical and Experimental Modal Analysis (IJAEMA), Online ISSN: 0886-9367, Volume: XIII, A Study on Cyber-Defense Ethics and Initiatives by Governments of Under Developing Nations: A Study of Selected Countries, Issue: I, Page: 977-986, DOI: https://doi.org/18.0002.IJAEMA.2021.V13I1.200001.01 5685901966,January2021.

[24] L. Righetti et. al. (2018), Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, Ethical, Legal, and Societal Issues, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, Volume:25,Issue:1, Pages: 123-126, March 2018, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2017.2787267

[25] G. C. Allen (2022), DOD is Updating Its Decade-Old Autonomous Weapons Policy, but Confusion Remains Widespread. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Director, AI Governance Project and Senior Fellow, STP, June 6 2022, https://www.csis.org/analysis/dod-updating-itsdecade-old-autonomous-weapons-policy-confusionremains-widespread

[26] K. Anderson and M. C. Waxman (2017), Debating AutonomousWeaponSystems,TheirEthics,andTheir Regulation Under International Law. THE OXFORD HANDBOOKOFLAW,REGULATION,ANDTECHNOLOGY, ROGERBROWNSWORD,ELOISESCOTFORD&KAREN YEUNG, EDS., OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2017; AMERICAN UNIVERSITY WASHINGTON COLLEGE OF LAW RESEARCH PAPER NO. 2017-21; COLUMBIA PUBLIC LAW RESEARCH PAPER NO. 14-553 (2017). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarsh ip/2037

[27] A.Sharkey(2018),Autonomousweaponssystems,killer robots and human dignity, Ethics, and Information Technology(2019)21:75-97,Springer,Publishedonline: 6 December 2018, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9494-0

[28] R.Sparrow(2016),Robots andrespect: Accessingthe caseagainstAutonomousWeaponsSystems, Ethics,and International Affairs Volume 30 (Issue 1): page 93-116. Published Online by Cambridge University Press: 10 ISSN:2278-3075,Copyright:CarnegieCouncilforEthics in International Affairs 2016, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679415000647

[29] M.Skerkeret.al.(2020),Autonomousweaponssystems and the moral equality of combatants, Ethics, and Information technology (2020) 22: 197 - 209, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-020-09528-0, Publishedonline:23February2020,©SpringerNature B.V.2020

[30] M. Klincewicz (2015), Autonomous weapons systems, theFrame problemand Computer Security, Journal of Military Ethics, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, Volume-14,Number-2,Pages:162-176, Publishedonline: 25 Aug. 2015, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15027570.2015.1069013

BIOGRAPHIES

Dr. Naresh Kshetri (Member, IEEE) is currently an Assistant Professor of Cyber SecurityatLindenwoodUniversity,USA.He completed a Master of Computer Applications (MCA) from University of Allahabad,MS(Cybersecurity)fromWebster University,andPhD(CS)fromtheUniversityofMissouri–St. Louis(UMSL),Missouri,USA.Healsoworkedasagraduate teaching assistant/graduate research assistant for the computersciencedepartment,UMSLbesidesworkingasan Adjunct Instructor (Computer Science) at Lindenwood University.Withnine+yearsofexperienceinteachingand research, he has a total of seven publications (all as first author) inreputedjournals,conferences/bookchapters.His

Volume: 09 Issue: 10 | Oct 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072 © 2022, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.529 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page831

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 09 Issue: 10 | Oct 2022 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

current research interests include blockchain technology andcybersecurity.FormoreaboutDr.Kshetri,pleasevisit: https://sites.google.com/view/nareshkshetri.

Dr. Keith Miller is the Orthwein EndowedProfessorforLifelongLearning in the Sciences within the College of Education and College of Arts and SciencesattheUniversityofMissouri-St. Louis, MO, USA. Dr. Keith W. Miller earnedaBSineducation,anMSinmath, andaPhDincomputersciencefromThe UniversityofIowa(1983).Hetaughtcomputersciencefor many years and is now a member of UMSL's College of Education and College of Arts & Sciences. Dr. Miller has hundredsofpapers,presentations,andinvitedtalksthathe has authored or co-authored. As the Orthwein Endowed ProfessorforLifelongLearningintheSciences,Dr.Milleris working with the Saint Louis Science Center (SLSC) and othercommunity partnerstoinspirestudents from“K” to “grey” to become engaged with science, technology, engineering, and math. Dr. Miller's research areas include computerethics,onlineeducation,andsoftwaretesting.For more about Dr. Miller and his research, please visit: https://learnserver.net/faculty/keithmiller/