1

Weaponized Robots: Ethical Implications and Safety

Student name

Institution

Course

Instructor

Date
 2

Weaponized Robots: Ethical Implications and Safety

The present essay is intended to discuss the opposing aspects of weaponized robots in the

context of the Army. While the technological aspects of the recommendations show the ‘where’

and ‘how’ of change, the ethical issues demonstrate the ‘what’ should be avoided or may become

problematic in the future. The central question is: Why is it necessary to learn about possible

positive and negative consequences? Of course, that understanding is particularly crucial in the

case of army robots, as it helps us overcome the imperfections and avoid web threats that

humanity has not fully realized because of the limitations. Nonetheless, meaningful returns for

the society and the military are possible with these technologies. Boston Dynamics (2023) says

that the advantages that these technologies present are a lot larger than the chances of the former

being abused. But the aim should not be to dictate ways to turn over these robots into deadly

weapons. Keller (2023) also supports that opinion by arguing that “Army robotics officials have

stated that the service may not use unmanned, mechanized dogs with soldiers for another decade

at the very least” (original wording). Although the application of weaponized robots is

sometimes advantageous, it always creates ethical concerns, high chances of causing harm as

well as other dangers.

Firstly, it is necessary to determine what advantages have been mentioned and described

already. Boston Dynamics (2023) refers to such types of machines since they can navigate

themselves into position that were heretofore inaccessible to either autonomous or remotely

operated technologies. In other words, experiments with weaponized robots could enable soldiers

to practice the level and nature of access to the area without endangering their lives, as well as

help them to evacuate themselves in case of possible danger or collect information for future

operations. For example, as Keller (2023) stated, “robot dogs such as the Vision 60 Q-UGV are
 3

found to be widespread across the U.S. military, for instance, in guarding perimeters of various

complexes, and improving ISTAR capacities for soldiers in the field and other hard-to-reach

areas” (para. 8). However as noble as these objectives of robot manufacturers may sound the

limit may be too fine because such types of equipment could jeopardize their ethics and values if

for instance such pieces are armed specifically in the wrong hands or wrong intent.

On the contrary, other robotics makers point to the hazards of uncontrolled weapon

penetrating, which create potentials for catastrophic disasters. As noted by Clearpath Robotics

(2014) “On the other hand, would a robot possess the moral, sense or even an ability to

understand emotions to act against wrong or inhumane orders?” No. In the foreseeable future

would computers be capable of making those sorts of subjective decisions necessary for target

validation and the balanced application of force? No. May this technology blind those with it to

the sanctity of human life? As a matter of fact, we are sure this will be so.” (paragraph 6).

Although Clearpath Robotics issued such a statement in 2014, it would be of importance to note

that they stand in the same statement now, with all the developments that could exist in the

technology world. From one point of view, the concept could have numerous ethically correct

implications because people’s lives are to be guided by the decisions made by machinery. For

instance, who will be responsible that the robots make in their operations? Should it be

developed by the developers or was it the military’s job? What kind of legal consequences will

be performed? Keller (2023) opine, “If armed versions are used, then the Defense Department “is

also you to ensure their use, for weapon systems that contain decision making capabilities, does

so responsibly and legally.” In fact, all the corporations involved are in a very complicated state

because, indeed there are advanced technologies in the manufacture of robots, but people’s

confidence is lost as those restrictions have never been articulated. For example, the following
 4

are important conclusions: For example, polities as well as international law require intervening

to unmake, preserve, or perhaps cease the mistreatment of lethal autonomous systems.

Further, the possibility of manipulation of videos is another important drawback that has

to be mentioned. Weaponized robots, especially in wrong iteration, could even become the

weapons used by oppressors or terrorists. The problem also occurs when control systems are not

strongly defined because of these machines can be gained control remotely or used for other

wrong purposes. clearpath robotics in 2014 are very much preoccupied with the consequences of

placing the autonomy responsibility of complex systems in such existence with the authority to

either prevent or terminate human lives without consulting with a human being. This risk has

showed the need for highly specific rules and intergovernmental protocols when it comes to the

deployment and the functionality of the robots in question. Therefore, it is important to note that

setting measures for accountability and responsibility are of uttermost importance when it comes

to weaponized robots.

The consequences to the sufferers’ psychological well-being of soldiers and civilians as

well have to be taken into account. The use of fully autonomous robots in combat formations

may reduce the sensitivity of people to violent action and the regard for human life. Such

machines used together with the soldiers might find the adversaries or even fellow soldiers less

human, due to reliance on non-human support. As an added problem, the psychological effects of

using robotic combatants not only on the targeted civilians they attack but also those that come

across such machines in warfare could enormously harm the public and bring long-lasting

societal issues of mistrust in technology. It is pivotal to mitigate these psychological risks to

uphold the ethical standards for operation of autonomous systems within military and defense

affairs.
 5

In conclusion, it is possible to state that the usage of weaponized robots into the army

should be considered thoroughly. Though robotics producers elaborate on the advantage of

application of combat robots such as in Clear Path Robotics (2014) logistics, reconnaissance and

search and rescue (para 8) they also state that the implications may well escalate to similar, if not

lethal levels. Current international law and policymakers are presented with profound ethical

dilemmas, which might have to involve collective discursive processes to develop regulation

necessary to shield vulnerable voices which, at present, may not be powerful enough to avoid

possible harm. If so, all details and aspects which encompass contacts of soldiers with unmanned

robots may, perhaps, be contemplated. Therefore, let in technological advancements into soldiers

and human lives and this won’t be a catastrophe.

References

Boston Dynamics. (2023). General-purpose robots should not be weaponized. Boston Dynamics.

https://bostondynamics.com/news/general-purpose-robots-should-not-be-weaponized/

Clearpath Robotics. (2014). Clearpath takes a stance against killer robots. Clearpath Robotics.

https://clearpathrobotics.com/blog/2014/08/clearpath-takes-stance-against-killer-robots/

Keller, J. (2023, August 28). The Army wants to slap a next-generation squad weapon on a robot

dog. Military.com. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/08/28/army-wants-slap-

next-generation-squad-weapon-robot-dog.html