This paper will give a response to Arkin in his article titled “the case against robotic warfare. The paper will primarily give a discussion on the audience targeted by the author, the weaknesses that articulates from the argument and lastly my instance on the use of robots in warfare to replace the human soldiers.
From the text of the article, we get that the author is giving a challenge to the military sector who are the audience of the article. Throughout the article, the main points that articulate from the reading include Arkin’s argument that a warfare containing machines would be more ethical as compared to human soldiers. The second point that seems to be having more weight is the aspect of military effectiveness and ethical superiority that includes ethics versus military effectiveness, and proportionality and discrimination.
Throughout the argument, we also encounter instances of weaknesses articulating from the article in that even if the lethal autonomous robots would behave ethically than human in the battle filed it does not give an explicit reason if the warfare containing the robots would be ethical more than human soldiers.
My instance is that robots can take over soldiers’ job in the future. The reason behind this is that it would make war more ethical and reduce human causalities to a greater extent. In addition to this, we also find that human dispositions such as greed, fear, rage, fatigue and stress catalyzes misbehaviors in the battlefield leading to human soldiers to fall victims of their opponents. Therefore, robotics would be programed in that aspects such as fear, greed, rage, stress and fatigue would not feature as compared to human beings.
Tonkens, R. (2012). The case against robotic warfare: A response to Arkin. Journal of Military Ethics, 11(2), 149-168.