Pentagon Seeks a List of Ethical Principles for Using AI in War

Sur le même sujet

• 

  11 janvier 2021 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  French Defence Staff chief: France is making moves to guarantee its survival in the face of existential threats

  By: Gen. Francois Lecointre The singularity of the military lies in its raison d'être: to wage war in order to guarantee France survives an existential threat. To this end, the armed forces are alone in having limitless power to use deliberate force and to kill, if that is what the mission requires. This is what distinguishes them from law enforcement agencies who use force strictly in proportion to the risks incurred and who are constrained by the notion of self-defense. This military singularity is based on several fundamental principles. Discipline: The armed forces are the strength of the nation, and it is out of the question that one should be able — for even a second — to suspect them of wishing to become emancipated from legitimate political power. They are therefore strictly and totally subordinated to this political power, the delegatee of national sovereignty. As a counterpart to this subordination, the armed forces must be involved in making the decisions that they will implement under strong ethical requirements and with the knowledge that they may pay with their blood. Moreover, this very strict subordination to political power means they must also be perfectly neutral, both philosophically and politically. Responsiveness and availability: Together these must ensure that any form of surprise — the very essence of war — is averted. Nuclear deterrence is therefore the most successful expression of military singularity, notably because it is based on an operational organization and culture that guarantees its absolute responsiveness. The capacity for independent action: On the battlefield, an army must have every skill at its disposal so that it can conduct its mission, including in a totally disorganized environment. It cannot count on the services of the state and must therefore have on hand the whole range of professions it needs to carry out its mission, including those that might seem quite far removed from the implementation of force. If we relate this autonomy to reactivity, then the question arises of conferring the former in peacetime in order to guarantee the latter when the army needs to engage. Ethics: At the moment they commit the most extreme act possible — taking life — soldiers must be able to find support in high ethical standards and a corpus of values. More broadly, this is what constitutes a military culture, shared by all civilian and military personnel in the armed forces. Based on these principles, military singularity is expressed in many ways. Beyond the rules of status or pay, which first come to mind, it is notably the modes of operation, structuring and organization that singularize our armed forces. This notably involves subsidiarity; the creation of intermediary echelons whose task is to synthesize and summarize data for subordinates; and the capacity of commanders, who hold all the levers for action, to respond as fast as possible to a crisis. Military singularity today has been weakened by a certain number of changes: an organization and operational mode that gives preference to management over command; outsourcing; the adoption of civilian flow logic, including for vital functions; and the lack of reserves in military human resources. These phenomena are obstacles to our full effectiveness. We must consolidate military singularity by modernizing our defense tool into one that is capable of fighting in all fields, with sufficient mass, organization and depth of capabilities to allow it to assume all of its functions both in war and in crisis. This is the aim of the actions we are currently undertaking with the minister of the armed forces. To meet the objective set by the president of the republic — that France should have “a comprehensive, modern, powerful, balanced defense tool, implemented by reactive armed forces looking to the future” — the Military Program Law 2019-2025 must allow us to repair our defense tool before the next military program law modernizes it. We are working to restore the foundations of an organization and a culture compatible with the purpose of armed forces: to guarantee the survival of the nation in the face of an existential threat, in a world marked by uncertainty and a return of tragedy. Gen. Francois Lecointre is the chief of the French Defence Staff. https://www.defensenews.com/outlook/2021/01/11/french-defence-staff-chief-france-is-making-moves-to-guarantee-its-survival-in-the-face-of-existential-threats/

• 

  19 novembre 2018 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR

  Why the U.S. could lose the next big war - and what that means for Canada

  Murray Brewster · CBC News It was more than the usual sky-is-falling rhetoric we're used to seeing in national security reports out of Washington. It came from some pretty sober, respected voices in the defence community. A special commission report, presented to the U.S. Congress this week, delivered one of the most stark — even startling — assessments in the last two decades of the limits of American military power. The independent, nonpartisan review of the Trump administration's 2018 National Defence Strategy said the U.S. could lose future wars with Russia or China. "This Commission believes that America has reached the point of a full-blown national security crisis," reads the 116-page document written by 12 leading defence and security experts and released Wednesday. "If the United States had to fight Russia in a Baltic contingency, or China in a war over Taiwan, Americans could face a decisive military defeat." Those are sobering words for Canada, in light of this country's contribution of over 450 troops to the NATO-led deterrence mission in Latvia. Time for a defence policy rewrite? And it has prompted a call from at least one Canadian defence expert for a re-assessment — perhaps even a full-blown rewrite — of the Liberal government's own defence policy. More than simply another rote, boilerplate plea for fatter U.S. defence budgets, the commission's report lays out in precise detail the kind of geopolitical threats Washington — and, by extension, other Western capitals — are facing from rivals and enemies at many levels and in multiple spheres. "The security and well-being of the United States are at greater risk than at any time in decades. America's military superiority — the hard-power backbone of its global influence and national security — has eroded to a dangerous degree," says the report. "America's ability to defend its allies, its partners, and its own vital interests is increasingly in doubt. If the nation does not act promptly to remedy these circumstances, the consequences will be grave and lasting." The report acknowledges that the U.S. and its allies may be forced to fight a localized nuclear war in the future, given how Russia has restored the once-unthinkable concept to its military planning and training exercises. The commission also paints various grim scenarios that could confront Western allies between now and 2022, including an invasion of the Baltics under the guise of a "peacekeeping" mission to protect Russian minorities: "As U.S. and NATO forces prepare to respond, Russia declares that strikes against Russian forces in those states will be treated as attacks on Russia itself — implying a potential nuclear response. "Meanwhile, to keep America off balance, Russia escalates in disruptive ways. Russian submarines attack transatlantic fibre optic cables. Russian hackers shut down power grids and compromise the security of U.S. banks." The consequences, said the report, would be severe: "Major cities are paralyzed; use of the internet and smartphones is disrupted. Financial markets plummet as commerce seizes up and online financial transactions slow to a crawl. The banking system is thrown into chaos." While the report doesn't mention U.S. President Donald Trump by name, it notes the effect of his bruising rhetorical fights with world leaders and criticism of international institutions, such as NATO. "Doubts about America's ability to deter and, if necessary, defeat opponents and honour its global commitments have proliferated," said the report. Cautious optimism At this weekend's Halifax International Security Forum, Canada's marquee defence conference, some leading experts struck a less pessimistic note and suggested that the West still has a major technological lead on Moscow. "Russia is a great country. It is a great country, historically. But Russia is also a failing country," said Peter Van Praagh, president of the Halifax Security Forum, at the opening of the event on Friday. "Russia does not have the same advanced tools that NATO has, that Canada and NATO and the American alliance [have]." Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan also expressed cautious optimism about the threat. "In NATO we're taking this extremely seriously. We're learning from the various missions that are ongoing," he said. A former military adviser to one of Sajjan's predecessors said Canada could learn from the commission exercise, which was meant to challenge the Trump administration's defence plans. "It's certainly something we don't have," said Richard Cohen, an ex-army officer who served as former defence minister Peter MacKay's adviser. "Our government would never dream of inviting anyone to come and criticize its defence policy." The current government sought extensive input before the new Canadian policy was presented 18 months ago. The U.S. commission report calls on NATO and its allies to "rebuild" substantial military forces in Europe, among things. Cohen said that, if anything, should trigger a fresh look at the Liberal government's own defence policy. "Our defence policy is predicated on the kind of asymmetric warfare we have faced since the end of the Cold War and it really ignores the looming strategic threats that Russia, China and maybe some others pose as well," he said. "At least the United States realizes this growing strategic threat," Cohen added, noting that the current Liberal defence policy makes only passing mention of China "in very gentle terms" and limited references to Russia. "If the United States is in a national security crisis, then we're in a national security crisis." https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/defence-policy-trump-china-russia-1.4910038

• 

  14 décembre 2023 | International, Sécurité

  Congress passed the FY24 defense policy bill: Here’s what’s inside

  Congress just passed the FY24 National Defense Authorization Act. Here's a look at some key provisions.