Research Ethics: Weapons Development

Prepared by: Lester James V. Miranda

ECE162 Research Ethics Report

Introduction(slides 1-3)Significance of War Ethics (slide 4)

Challenge of War Ethics (slide 5)First Principles: Just War Theory (slides 6 - 9)

Case Study 1 (slides 10-14)Case Study 2 (slides 15-19)

Conclusion(slides 20)

Background: High-resolutionimage taken from a test lensdeveloped at Lockheed Martin.

Defense Contractors

1

Genetic engineering of IL-4 to the mousepox virus was meant to inducemice infertility , a viable strategy for pest control.

But the published papers were met with anxiety, for it can alert would-beterrorists in creating more virulent and vaccine-resistant strains of poxviruses, even giving them with explicit instructions.

2

Countries with highest funding in weaponsresearch ($ -- % of GDP)

1. USA: $581.0B – 3.0% 2. China: $129.4B – 1.2%3. Saudi Arabia: $80.8B – 10.7%4. Russia: $70.0B – 3.7%5. United Kingdom: $61.8B – 2.1%6. France: $53.1B – 1.8%7. Japan: $47.7B – 1.0%8. India: $45.2B – 2.2%

Source: International Institute for Strategic Studies (World Military Balance 2015)

Spent on the acquisition of militaryweapons from superpowers. 54% are

from refurbished equipment from the United States,18% from United

Kingdom, and 6% from Germany,

3

Source: Defense & Security Intelligence & Analysis: IHS (Retrieved 19 Feb 2015)

“Our ethics have become mostly technical: how to design properly, how to not cut corners, how to serve our clients well. We work hard to prevent failure of the systems we build, but only in relation to what these systems are meant to do, rather than the way they might actually be utilised, or whether they should have been built at all. We are not amoral, far from it; it's just that we have steered ourselves into a place where our morality has a smaller scope.”

4

To draw the line where the development of weapons –albeit inherently evil– is still ethical.

5

We then look into the Just War Theory and itsspecifications in the Law of Armed Conflict/ the International Humanitarian Law (IHL) .

The theory specifies conditions for judging if it is just to go to war, and conditions for how the war should be

fought. It provides a guide to the right way for states to act in potential conflict situations.

Contemporary war theory lies in the idea that war is always bad. A just war is permissible because it’s a lesser

evil, but it’s still an evil.

Two elements: jus ad bellum – conditions which the use of military force is justified & jus in bello – proper war

conduct. Weapons research falls into jus in bello.

6

Weapons Research Principle #1:

Weapons developed must only be designed to target enemy combatants, and not civilians caught in

circumstances they did not create.

7


Weapons developed must ensure that the harm caused to civilian properties is not excessive in relation to the

concrete military advantage anticipated by an attack; on a legitimate military objective.

The reason why nuclear bombs were condemned during the Nagasaki and Hiroshima raids is because the scope of damage (inaccessible cities, mutation, civilian deaths) far outweighed the military objective.

8


Malum in se – evil in itself. Weapons research shouldnot give rise to weapons that are considered evil (see

below) – or develop weapons whose effects cannot becontrolled (biological, nuclear, or chemical weaponry)

9

Mustard GasBis(2-chloroethyl) sulfide

Military-Grade AnthraxBacillus anthracis

Production and Deploymentof Smart Landmines: Ethical or not?

Landmines are strategic tools to control land. In warfare, they wereused to defend military bases, deny enemy strategic positions, and

channel enemy movement. Years following the Second World War, The use of the regular, « dumb », Anti-Personnel (AP) Landmines

were banned by the Red Cross.

Recently, the US Military proposed a new type of mine than can beused in a non-war, civilian setting. They claimed that « theseweapons pose little to no risk to civilians » because they are

designed to self-destruct or self-deactivate after a pre-definedperiod of time. These smart landmines will be used to protectmilitary bases from civilian trespassers, or to deny access in a certain area of land in order to « protect the state’s interests ».

Should this type of mine be developed and deployed?

10

Production and Deploymentof Smart Landmines: Stakeholders

The public. The lands will bedeployed in areas that are potentially near the civilianpopulation.

State-owned land. The lands in question will then be protected by smart landmines, once they are deployed.

11

Production and Deploymentof Smart Landmines: Options

Option A: Develop & Deploy. Deploy Smart Landminesas planned. Put warning signs around the land bordersas possible.

Option B: Develop & Deploy (with reservations). DeploySmart Landmines as planned. Put military personnel in addition to warning signs around the borders to keepoff civilian trespassers.

Option C: Do NOT Develop & Deploy. Do not developsmart landmines. Think of other strategies to protectlands of interest.

12

Production and Deploymentof Smart Landmines: Evaluation

Option B may be the solution, but practically, it requires thedoublingof resources (men and landmine) when the original proposition for

smart landmine deployment is to automate them. On the other hand, Option A poses the most risk of civilian casualties. This rules out both

options A and B.

Option C is the most ethical option. Red Cross cited the jus in belloprinciple of distinction to rid of any landmine arguments entirely:

Mines, including these « smart » landmines cannot discriminatebetween a civilian or an enemy, or even between humans or beasts.

Non-compliance to jus in bello in weapons research is highlyunethical (rules out A and B entirely). Thus, the best option is to

disapprove smart landmine technology and think of other options to defend lands of interests.

13

The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons

ARTICLE 3. Indiscriminate use is any placement of such weapons: a. Not on, or directed against, a military objective; or

c. Which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combinationthereof,which would be excessive in relatin to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

ARTICLE 5. Effective advance warning shall be given of any delivery or dropping of remotely delivered mines which may affect the civilianpopulation, unless circumstances do not permit.

Protocol II: Mines, booby-traps, other devices

b. Employs a method or means of delivery which cannot be directedat a specific objective

14

White Phosphorus (WP) ResearchIn Improving Military Ammunitions

White-Phosphorus (WP) is the most suitable and cost-effective substance to be used in a widevariety of military tasks, some of which including:

Smoke-screen

IncendiaryWeapons

Tracer

Illumination

However, WP is toxic and can cause blistering to skin and mucousmembranes. Burning WP is difficult to extinguishand has a tendency to reignite. Also, WP inhalation can destroy lungs.

Given the risk it can cause to both personnel and enemy, should WP bebanned entirely?

15


The public. Fumes from WP can reach civilian zones, causing unnecessarysuffering.

Military Personnel. The direct handlers of WP will be exposed to muchrisk.

Enemy Forces. Anti-Personnel use of WP cancause devastating side-effects to enemy forces.

16


Option A: Utilize WP. Utilize WP in all militaryammunitions, given its cost-effectiveness and widerange of use.

Option B: Utilize WP (with reservations). Utilize WP only in military tasks that possess lesser risks in bothpersonnel, civilian, and enemy.

Option C: Do NOT Utilize WP. Do not utilize WP. Employ other substances for the military usage affected.

17


Although cost-effectiveness is most often the design criterion used in engineering, it is still equally important to discuss the product’s utility

and ethical implications. Option A is then completely ruled out because it concerns itself only in the practical dimension.

Both options B and C are justifiable solutions, but B can balance bothpracticality and ethics. One cannot deny the multiple usage of WP to

not use it entirely (Option C), so the usage of WP in areas where it willpose little to no risk (Option B) is a good compromise.

In fact, the Geneva Convention on Incediary Weapons allowed WP use but with great restrictions. For example, they only allowed WP to

be used as flare signals--complete igntion happens mid-air, awayfrom personnel/public,and tracers--detects enemy aircraft and lasers,

not affecting the person itself.

18

The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons

ARTICLE 2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilianpopulation as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attackby incendiary weapons.

ARTICLE 2.4 It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weaponos except when such elements are usedto cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.

Protocol II: Protcol on Prohibitions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons

19

ARTICLE 2.3. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any militaryobjective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.

Research Ethics on Weapons Development

Maybe, some time in the future, we get employed as an engineer in a defense contractor, or our seemingly unharmful thesis can have

profound military applications. It is important to know the limitations and extent into which this knowledge in weapons development is

still ethical.

The Geneva Convention Protocols and the Just War Theory, followedby universities and institutions often in the First-World, are

regulations that can guide decision-making in the design of suchsystems. It then follows that they have to be regarded with the

highest importance.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htmhttp://www.offiziere.ch/wp-content/uploads/White-Phosphorus-and-the-law-of-war.pdfhttp://www.yalelawjournal.org/comment/the-case-for-regulating-fully-autonomous-weapons https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?documentId=D963622B5E6EFEE5C12563CD002D6C3C&action=openDocumenthttps://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?documentId=B0625F804A9B2A64C12563CD002D66FF&action=openDocumenthttps://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?documentId=A0B2F6B37BB094C7C12563CD002D6ADA&action=openDocumenthttp://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/05/engineering-moral-effects-technology-impacthttp://www.yalelawjournal.org/comment/the-case-for-regulating-fully-autonomous-weaponshttp://www.offiziere.ch/wp-content/uploads/White-Phosphorus-and-the-law-of-war.pdf

Documents

Research Ethics: Weapons Development