short of being able to train this band of rebels, weapons is a choice and as mr. hadley indicated, it s necessary for this for the rebels to achieve any greater success and not achieve some stalemate, which everybody has decided is unacceptable. we would all agree that a partitioned libya is not what we re looking for. general marks, from a military standpoint, arming folks who, you know, have just been handed a weapon for the first time and giving them an rpg, is that is that practical? is that easy to use? the notion of the gang that couldn t shoot straight might be lived out. absolutely, there must be some degree of training associated with arming this force. however, some weapon systems clearly they can get a handle on and they can use immediately. it s the more lethal weapon systems that would require training and i don t think there s time to do that. clearly we have a checkered past in terms of those that we ve armed before and having to face those weapons systems in bat
we would all agree that a partitioned libya is not what we re looking for. general marks, from a military standpoint, arming folks who, you know, have just been handed a weapon for the first time and giving them an rpg, is that is that practical? is that easy to use? the notion of the gang that couldn t shoot straight might be lived out. absolutely, there must be some degree of training associated with arming this force. however, some weapon systems clearly they can get a handle on and they can use immediately. it s the more lethal weapon systems that would require training and i don t think there s time to do that. clearly we have a checkered past in terms of those that we ve armed before and having to face those weapons systems in battle in the future. so clearly, there are a number of decisions that need to be made. steven hadley, the biggest argument against arming the opposition forces is the u.s. isn t really sure who they re arming, there may be anti-american elements am
much more accurately officially how army currently deploys autonomous lethal weapon systems here in israel it s openly discussed how advanced the state of development is. you cannot become a look at the quote it s already technically possible but our army isn t allowing exploitation of this opportunity will be able to completely automatic systems with lethal capabilities exist already but ultimately there is still a human attributable. when the battlefields and future wars be devoid of humans following orders of ai programs clever bots could dominate the seas and skies they re able to communicate among themselves and what attack their targets determined by a software program a professor shockey says this kind of how brenda scenario should never come to pass the come up to guarnteed to comply with international humanitarian law in many ways
quickly. this gun is also combat ready it s controlled by ai as has already been tested on a military base in iraq autonomous weapons can operate and kill independently counting many more systems are being. developed. yet there are few if any international regulations for their use the united nations member states have commissioned experts to address the issue in geneva robotics professor no shockey is representing the international committee for robot arms control at the talks the difference when a human soul generally thought almost weapon is that a soldier can be discriminate in the response in the bay the laws of war and be compassionate lethal a thomas weapon the cold uncompassionate less and it would fire it could target much more accurately officially no army currently deployed autonomous lethal weapon