Lets get started. The program is recorded and live stream so we have to start exactly at 5 30 p. M. So i apologize if we cut off any brilliance. Ina a visiting scholar and coauthor buyers now before the supply runs out. That is a joke the supply will never run out. To have the panelist and commentator at the center for strategic and International Studies and was just complaining United Nations. Those that have day background is cybersecurity issues they are grateful to have them with us. So briefly describe the themes in the book first we will hear to have 20 or 25 minutes for questions and answers and discussion. Also but i could not think of a better place to think of future technology. Is an amazing facility and also things to lindsey for organizing the up panel and of course, day ae i of leadership and staff. So the book basically has three points. The Rapid Advances are also coming to military weaponry. Autonomous cars and great advances in robotics. And now the of leading edge that they will provide much more complex drones and naval vessels. Drones that can operate in the air autonomously with antimissile defense in regard to our north korea. Just as bc daschle aggregation and manipulation of data the algorithms carrying out to training or social media also been the of military world. And also on the receiving and. If it attacks into a the government database and other alleged did russian interference and space in the course of a few years a rapid drop in the cost of launching satellites into space banks to private enterprise but at the same time with the deployment of these technologies to be the head of space saks also tesla sent a letter calling for the ban on the use of Artificial Intelligence with weaponry. He was also had a letter with Stephen Hawking and steve was the act was a founder of apple and other scientists to call for regulation and prohibition of Artificial Intelligence of weapons than they fear a future where robots will make us a decision how to wage war or assassinate enemy leaders or attack ethnic groups or invade or occupied territories. So the book we roche is a response to these efforts to create a ban or heavily regulate new kinds of weapons. Historically one is doomed to failure every time there has been a big if finance and economics also more technology and productivity. And why they fail. And the progress made for the Industrial Revolution and they call for the ban of these weapons with those biological and chemical weapons because they survived. The second point we should not fear these new weapons and then to make war cheaper and massproduced and destructive and discriminant and less between civilians and combatants. And that has the opposite effect so the use of force could be much more precise less harmful or destructive and much more protective and discriminating of a the targets. The third thing is the main critic of these new technologies coming from the United Nations many academics from other governments so though the argument is that war will become too easy. Or to send a robot off to do the fighting. And our argument it is about the technology about the purpose of war in the modern age . If there is too much or too little . So for example, north korea or syria examples that are stocked with passivity to deploy all large amount of troops or resources. We argued these types of technologies that they have options in between doing nothing. That will fully promote International Order or allow them before it becomes the full stage of the human shooting war. So i will close there before turning a dover. It over. So lots of the fear of the weapons because James Cameron is too good of paid electoral but that sounds great. I love Science Fiction i watch star trek which i highly recommend it is there really a serious concern . And i taught at the National War College. That would make it harder to win. So from a different perspective let me take this to read different level. Coming from the perspective how best we can win if we use technology. It will not last forever with different systems of government. But there is Something Else going on that this International System if believe we lead and start doing things that we will have problems. If someone does the department of defense we have to take into account how the allies are saying so with this technological debate so we have to be careful with whats of our allies. And to stop these technologies like robotics on the battlefield. And that constituency that makes its living that the u. S. That is what they do. We cannot do arguments the face value. So were doing almost all of them and actual practice what they say we shouldnt we doing. They are using drones. It seems like everyone else is out there as well. They are making a lot of noise and they will take seriously what their allies are saying but i do not have a lot of serious arguments of drones on the battlefield to pursue interest with a guided munitions. And to make these arguments against technology so if they have a leg to stand on in the our real world. We have banned weapons in the past but normally those that have a horrific effect weapons that dont are not banned and i think that is one of the things they want to think about that it is not clear to me that if anything with the new development they will see of planned of cyberand precision and hypersonic with a different type of battle such said 1990 with a military technology i think everyone agrees that it does but there is agreement among the members and seconds in the proportionality. Is a bit premature. Antiaudience we heard with the International Lawyers with the old arms control trekked trick is to write a treaty to ban what your opponent is doing but now you are doing. I would be upset that the classic example is the Chinese Foreign ministry with of mechanization of space up until the morning we have to expect that and to take advantage of the first to constrain the United States with that biological weapon is a classic example of russian behavior. Why are we so risk averse with people writing about technologies that do not exist . So with that defense it is not the end of the world. It is preferable to have a machine vs. A human being shot at. With a new demonic technology is the source of the godzilla movie to worry about catastrophes and this may be one of them. For me it is a further continuation of technologies that make military more effective with the other leading exporters china there is of a larger debate of those of the unknown peril to the future pro we could have a larger discussion of improving military capabilities to make those more cautious to reduce the of risk my beef is that we would never see another world war. With mask on a global scalar and then that makes it so costly. Two you just to briefly address so to talk about control but just so you have a frame of reference in a the cyberarea is not officially a nato document but then to come up with this study in how they apply to cyberoperations and how it applies in cybercontext and there are four competing treatises that have been written and those working for governments. And this original talent so they went to the of book party for the of launch which is sponsored by the dutch government and those that were involved to come up with the second edition three years later so now that would be ruled as a second edition. Im not trying to tell you what would really have been with the cyberattacks but i think it is not real good to have everything channeled but the point of badges the way government is working to give material to lawyers that this is all been worked out and they all say though lawyers cant extrapolate can extrapolate with cyberarianna as the example they think what looks like a four tiered authoritative. But the second thing i want to say is it discourages people who need to think about this any serious way. It is not lets just cut loose and be wild but it pulls out in many ways or context and we think about how this works. The main tree he going back through the 70s with the distinction between military targets which are permissible and civilian and proportionality if there is going to be incidental harm to the infrastructure that cannot be the figure befits is incidental it cannot be excessive in relation to the of military advantage. So that whole description and that way of thinking is if you bomb with 1,000 bombers you will kill a lot of people live better be worth it. Whole way of thinking about it if youre expecting bombers to hit with 1940 technology with a 5mile radius of the intended target they were not close to the actual target. If you think of cyberthe Iranian Program you will hit that installation and target the industrial control. And it is incapacitated this piece of equipment if you step back to ask the lawyers question and with that military targets with that Peaceful Nuclear reactor. So that in itself did someone disputed. Sova capacity to produce say bomb down the road is affected that does damaged in the of been time that is disproportionate. That people who have learned how to ask that really doesnt make sense with those cyberstrikes that can be very focused. And we did this surreptitiously. It is sent a matter that they will inhibit us but from thinking and a creative way and in the appropriate way what do technologies enable us to do . And we need to have a more open consideration more than a robotic way. To mechanically applying that to a strategic setting with that weapons and technology. I was in town at the nato conference and ask the following question which was not popular but can chipmunks capture tigers . Because the great powers behave in a certain way. If you look at that subset subset, up Terrence Mccoy will do what it needs to do and if it does not pursue technology could be disqualified from the future but more importantly the treaties have value to be engaged in a way but with budget leave the convention and a the protocols those are post facto so they came after wars of aerial bombardment and that is what has inspired them. That may not be a good way to do that. Taking something, taking something, but never to the point where it forces the frog to take defensive maneuvers and jump out of the pot do something they can our adversaries have got good at this thing, chinese particularly and russians as well work what they find is often legal chinks or cheeks of tradition which allow us allow them to get into our system without, in ways we cannot we cant stop, so one of the things that has been in the news a lot lately has been Chinese Companies purchasing us companies and you have seen them buying the strategic technology. Its a free marketing if you come up with Great Technology why not let chinese investors who may or may not be working for someone else in the chinese but not bureaucracy, why not let them buy it, so america having the freedom of private property and you want to sell that, but once that technology is in the hands of the Chinese Government it can be used to do devastating things to our military, our economy, Critical Infrastructure and so forth. That is a chink in our armor, how do you revise our laws and traditions in such a way that we can start to address these critical vulnerabilities exists because we have outpaced the laws made in an earlier era or traditions or customs or whatever it might be, so this is something i think can it really needs to be addressed whenever we think about new technology, new military or militarized technology being inserted into the mix of military capabilities on hand. Im going to continue. Though on the coauthor i will still be the moderator, so its a strange position to bn, but its like being an asian mother with a kid, which is an asian kid my mother would say and i know she was really proud of me and she would say thats a good score, but why didnt you do better, so jeremy, having heard these two comments, why didnt we do better in our book . Is there something we should have added . [laughter] that was pretty good. What would you say in response to these two points, the one about cyber . I do take the general point, but theres a lot of talk about the conflict and its hard to know what the real significance of it is particularly when we are not fighting, so when you are not fighting the easiest thing is to say we would never do a damn thing because we just wouldnt and i also take your point where sometimes doing that we are teaching in our war colleges that you are not supposed to be teaching in our jag a school that youre not supposed to do, so what is that so you . Well, i dont snow and a since you this as a question, is a criticism of the book, yeah, i wish i knew the answer to these things and then i would have a chapter. Yeah, let me explain it to you. I think, i mean, i think this is a pervasives teacher of modern life that people say things they dont quite mean and if they keep saying them you start to worry that its kind of makes a difference. If i could give you an analogy, which i probably shouldnt, but i will anyway, that the device was recently saying people have gone like really crazy with these Sexual Harassment procedures and i think part of the reason people went a little bit extreme is they kept saying things which kind of didnt quite fully think and just kept saying them and then theres a certain momentum. I think the point if you are really in a war and care so much about lawyers and care so much about what you said and dont care about how you look, but i think the main interest of these weapons i could be wrong, bt i think the main significances it allows us to deliver course of the call them strikes, core service strikes, nudges, prompts , inducements in a contact that isnt allout war. I think the attack was excellent and i think no one in the world like no government said that was wrong you shouldnt have done that. Everyone was like that was interesting. Its precisely in that sort of shadowland where you are not in allout war and you just think hell with the rules this is allout war, but it isnt quite normal peacetime interactions where, i think, there is hesitation, but theres a b hesitation. You dont beat provocative or go to park would have people denounce it, so in a situation like that i think there is some hesitation to one example, which i think is instructive, the Bush Administration has a program to stop pull of ration of weapons mass destruction and one of the things we did was intervention on the high seas and it was one moment in which we sees that this shift from north korea which was bound to someplace in africa and it sure wasnt shipping civilian goods from north korea, which everyone likes to have, so the whole thing was incredibly suspicious and we released it very quickly and i take it what it was about i never talked to anyone to tell me the inside story, but what i take it was about was in normal peacetime conditions we are worried about degrading the loss of cme weight when a general understanding that you dont interfere with shipping and peacetime and if we were in a real war and we know it from the last fullscale war, we allowed ourselves to interfere to a great extent with neutral shipping and we just said no, you need our permission to be on the atlantic literally. That was allout war, but short of that we are not sure what the rules are and i think there is some indication that we are a bit more inhibited in some circumstances that we might be and to think we need to think harder about new technologies allowing us to have intervention that is not the same as launching a war and what should we allow ourselves to do. Im not saying if we fought hard we would figure out and have exactly perfectly calibrated scheme, which we could then disseminate to people in the military, i mean, we will learn from experience and see what the reactions are and see what is effective and not effective, but i think its fair to say yeah, even accepting the point that theres a great deal of verbiage and meaningless rhetoric and gaping, we are sometimes in danger of gaming ourselves or inhibiting ourselves excessively or being too worried about what if as a someone said to me, one of my students, you cant do that. Its coloring outside the lines. Is not a kindergarten exercise, its okay to color outside the lines. Before we to turn to the audience for me ask the question of the panelists because i think jeremy sharpened this point, which i think its jeremys view or hes been pressing the view that the laws of war at least in modern post 77 incarnation are ideologically motivated or politically motivated and they have the affect of inhibiting the United States or western powers and what they can or are willing to do in war and that these new technologies give us the opportunity to try to change those. Do you agree with that initial arm argument that the laws of war in this incarnation are really motivated by political or ideological gains in putting that aside do you think the us should use opportunities and new technologies to change them maybe that to the way they were they before or a new system . I will take that and i absolutely agree that, i mean, you know, International Laws one of the ways that other countries try to constrain the United States and when you see a country as powerful as the us you try to find some way to gain some control and our allies have done this going back to the 70s. In the book you talk about primitive perspective of fairness. Is all of the advantages to the terrorists to all of the advantages go to the weak powers and its definitely designed to constrain coming right after vietnam constraining us trying to find some way to keep that superpower at bay and in check. Right now there might be opportunities with these new weapons to change that a little bit. Yeah, i think that is the case but theres this other thing going on which is our adversaries right now are you making good of summit east technologies. The chinese in particular and i go back and the russians that weve seen in the news about every day now. Will they are taking advantage and if we come up with nifty new laws they will apply to us, but i really really dont think that new laws that govern the type of technology that ban this technology and restrain this technology, i dont think the chinese will respect those laws and i dont think the russians or the iranians or the north koreans will, so if we come up with a new set of laws to try to constrain the new technology i cant see any goodness coming out of it for sort of International System we have built since world war ii fear maybe im too dismissive of International Lawyer lawyer class trying to do this, but if they were successful it would definitely be a bad thing for the title world stable system that we have today and thats how i would address the question i wonder if it is that more of a political issue, so im treading a bit outside the box by same laws and instrument, people use according to their preferences and the preference in western society particularly in europe for the last few decades has been to move away from force as an instrument of state power and particularly in the western european countries, none of whom perhaps with one exception carry the load when it comes to defense. Some people have called it a period of the strategic timidity , so i dont think the laws themselves are the problem. The laws are relatively flexible and give you the ability to do what you need to do if you can justify its. I think it is our interpretation that is the dilemma, so i dont think i know in a sort of Cottage Industry now in parts of that academic world to create a new norm governing new warfare, so you can only use of thomas weapons in the same month [inaudible] we dont need the norms. Are not sure we even need new laws, but we may need to rethink the politics about using force and i think part of it is i think countries are cautious about force. Even the russians and the chinese are careful to not cross them bill defined threshold that would provoke a military reaction, so i like the part of the book that we have entered a new way to think about conflict, and to use technology to influence each other. I think that is correct and we need to think through that, not so much to change the laws, but may be changed how we apply those laws. We are going to turn now to questions from the audience. Ive been asked to keep in mind that the event is live streamed and also will be on cspan. Please wait for the microphone to come to you before you ask your question. Speak clearly into the microphone. Ask a brief question and make sure it really is a question. I teach at berkeley, so a lot of the questions often turn into speeches and we went to avoid that here. If someone could bring a microphone over to hear. Great. Also, if you are directing a question to a person or as a whole to the panel would be helpful. Thank you. Let me address the question to all of you. If we take away the presumption that this Technology Actually benefits the United States in any kind of asymmetrical away because they are inseminated and so on, with that aptitude that you all seem to be advocating change in any way . Not for me because for me the one issue that has not come up enough in the counterargument is the aspect of reducing casualties and im baffled by it , but if you have to choose between one of our shoulders being shot and a machine being shot i know which one i will pick so im happy to send machines in the combat if it reduces casualties. That has nothing to do with advantage to one side or the other im not sure we have advantage. Our opponents have been the need for at least a decade on how to build technologies to give them an advantage and if you look at chinese and russian activities in space we are vulnerable. May be one of these people who signees letters could also sign the theories if we dont have these autonomous weapons then we wont have wars. Great, i think the treaty in 1926 that, yeah no, come on. Is this Technology Save peoples lives which it will do on the battlefield once you use it seem like you have to get down to cases and specific technology. Some might be provocative. It may make more war likely. Depends on which technology are talking about. There are certain types of cyber conflicts which i would love to ban if i thought we could get our opponents to adhere to it. I have no hope whatsoever that they will actually adhere to any sort of thing we would want them to adhere to, but if i felt it was somehow would help us in the process i would be the first one to get the rule of law passed your guy just dont see that in the cards for many of the technologies we are discussing here today. I want to say two things in the first is we shouldnt think of this as well the only conflict that matters is the United States and china, i mean, we actually havent fought china since 1953, but we have casualties fighting in a lot of places and with odd about other places, so its worth thinking about how this could apply to a lot of the places in the middle east, for example. That is the first thing. The second thing is to be really crude about this, i mean, i dont think my view for what its worth, there cannot be an International Norm that the binding on us without our consent and therefore if we really disagree its not the rule at least for us, so if you accept that, which is certainly everyone who works with the Us Government should not only accept but assert and repeat everyday, the danger is not the legal danger like are we trapped its the psychological danger that we have turned around and confuse like what were we talking about. Is this a bad thing to do and its good to push back on that and as someone said you are just saying cyber is lawful because you are better at it. Yes, okay fine. We are better at it. Why is that bad . The point is the rules cannot be to make sure everyone has an equal chance thats not the point of the rules. The point is to avoid unnecessary suffering when it can be avoided when its really a necessary, not equalize a situation and if you say we wont otherwise get agreement that is okay. It allows things where theres a no agreement on where the rules should be so we can live with that request the point of being a superpower if you cant live with some uncertainty in the world . So, how about this a gentleman. Since we have been beating up on International Lawyers all date and then william, the farmer Legal Advisor of the state department will defend his profession. Thats really not what i had in mind. [laughter] this whole area is was that baffles me and it seems there are some elements here, one the arms control debate, should we allow this kind of weapon or whatever that debate was. Or is it a debate over how the laws of war, what they should be in this context. I thought it was interesting back at the beginning of the year when the russian hacking and interference and so forth was at its peak. There were two academics that were actually not lawyers, so we can even blame them for that, but proposing this great outrage in what the russians had done and recommending responsive action that would deter them from doing it again and i asked the question with what is it we would be taking action against, was at the hacking or the use of whites they got through the hacking in disseminating its in the middle of the us campaign and the response came back that it was the use of the material in the us campaign, which then the whole thing seemed to fall apart. I think it was used by the russians. But this whole for example what is an appropriate response to the use of one of these things as opposed to whether or not the hacking should be permitted. I dont see any answers on the horizon. I do not think there are very clear rules about this and i think what the russians did, which people carry on about as is the most monstrous thing ever , i would just speculate that we had done similar things another country elections. We like try to help and also, i mean, its unclear to me what the motive was on the russian side. I think we usually have a more i would say constructive strategy. I think they were just trying to shake things up, but yeah i think its her to say there arent really agreed rules about this and i think that we probably dont want there to be agreed rules because i think we dont know what we might like to do as far as gathering information and then the point at which is the core of this. Its distracting to say like cyber, i mean, think it as st nagy. Are we against espionage . Would we like there to be a elaborate code of espionage rules . I think not. President trumps executive order in Cyber Security includes the commissioning of a study by the inter Agency Community on how exactly to deter how to link norms and deterrence, so i think one of the things you will see in the next few months is certainly a study and perhaps even suggestions for retaliatory actions that will be painful, damaging, but not permanent and reversible and to the back to the old arms control lingo, this would be called populating all the wrongs of the escalation ladder. So we have done a good job at populating the latter above the threshold of use of force and below that where these activities fall, there hasnt been a lot of thought. I think the call by the administration to think up these temporary painful but reversible retaliatory actions is a good idea. I agree with that, also. Supplement a little bit, the book itself is fairly pessimistic that arms control, but not about deterrence so we didnt have arms control that succeeded in the Cold War Nuclear weapons until towards the end after a lot of time, experience with weapons and a lot of experience with our adversaries, so exactly what jim is talking about is what you would like to do. You wouldnt start to develop methods of her tower leading for things like russian hackings and elections or china stealing of database and thats where we think the norms get created is after long period of practice of deterrence rather than signing a agreement and treaty or getting together experts manual which is or, i mean, jeremy didnt mention this to richard, but there is a harvard project that gets killer robots. We will of course ban heart but killer robots because harvard says we have to. We dont to get in those things will succeed, but the kind of thing jim and richard are talking about are more important areas where you can have deterrence. These weapons great more opportunities. We want a study on deregulation on coercive uses of new technology. Everyone hates hates arms control her skirt line is to the left on that one stomach the utility of arms control in the future is a good question, however. On calling on the ringers, first. How about harvey over here we make no dont call on harvey. Hello. My question or comment is in my private capacity and i dont represent any entity im associated with. Jim sort of raised the issue of weak zero into law countermeasures and torsion, which we are starting to evolve and many norms have evolved that way from the practice, but i think there are number of levels of conversation you are having and one is it we always talk about in the National War College the revolution in military affairs and technology is becoming this third revolution. We talk about the third offset and our world about what the advantages for the west versus the adversaries, but i guess the question for you guys is that there is this notion that what you are focusing on is what we call in bello which is how you apply the law to the idea of fighting, but we also just add the lump, what is the reason to go to war and technology is cutting across both of those phenomenon. As you said, and a lot of countries are trying to figure out whats below the threshold under our Geneva Convention for the production of force in cyberspace. A lot of us are trying to think about that, so i would be curious for you as a group to Start Talking about white ucs ad bellum and what you see in the space a reason that would cross over and be i dont think you are saying they want to throw out the concept, which is our way of making distinctions because remember the origins of all of these norms comes from us, which is the lieber code which is started in the civil war which lincoln lays out the left and right margins of whats appropriate and why does in the context of a civil war because the goal is in the end you want to join the board to join the north in a manner that does not result in an ongoing civil war forever, which we may have so i would be curious to see the panels reaction. We will do this in a lightning round fashion because theres only four minutes left, so go. I wanted to speak first about that we started this with the lieber code. Professor lieber was hired to do this because he was from germany and thought to know what europeans think the rules are and he did research. He gave some explanations of why these are the rules. We didnt just make them up, but to the larger point yes, we want to have rules in the way we fight war. Of course we do in the question is, are they frozen in place of what people thought they should be in the 1970s even when it was a very partisan telling and i think the answer is, no. If you raise the question of getting into a war, its interesting fact which has been totally forgotten. They used to have before the Second World War pacific reprisal which made hit them hard and break stuff if its not a war. After 1945 we thought no, no, hit them hard and then it will be a war and it will be back to it and that will be terrible. No, no, no, no because re torsion had to be something that was in itself lawful and i think this is more than that. Anyway, i think it was a lot of lines as to what you think of as a neck to force when you can do it at a distance without landing personnel bear and we need to think more about that. Richard. I would address this by saying that what counts as war now is really unclear because the russians right now regularly say they are at war with us and theres also a strategic chinese contingent who say they are at war with the United States, so what exactly if you are doing as some people in the Intelligence Community published a number of times trillions of dollars in damage to your adversary economy, if i considered war . Knowing his dying. What if like last week a report came out that dragonfly malware has been found on all kind of us critical of the structure. I mean, its not like they are putting bombs underneath our transformers, not physical bombs. They may do more damage, is that were . We need to rethink what constitutes the old notion is if we declare war does not cover anymore and we need to really rethink this commonsense term and come up with solutions to solve these technological puzzles. Quickly. The rules that apply to combat the use of force remained perfectly applicable and appropriate. I dont see using proportionality distinction, military necessity. As we have heard the part thats difficult is what qualifies as war now, what is the decision you make and in some ways the rules we have are as germane to the new technologies as the napoleonic conflict where you were uniforms and march into battle behind a band, so i think its more what is the conflict, not how what do you do when youre in conflict. I know what to do, but making that decision is not at all clear anymore. Lets me think my coauthor thank my coauthor and panelists and i thank you all for finishing on time and i would like to invite all of you for wine and cheese reception across the hall and the opportunity to buy a signed copy of the book if you are so inclined, but again join me in thanking everyone on the panel. [applause]. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] book tv is on twitter and facebook. We want to hear from you
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.