Most of us simply want peace in our lives, nation and world. We enjoy resting in a warm or cool house, with something to eat, free from worry and stress. Peace is not always easy. This winter, chances are that your heating bill was chomping on your checking account and taking a huge bite out of your income. You may have turned your thermostat down and wore extra layers hoping to cut back on literally burning up your money.
People have reported gas and electric bills from $500 to over a $1,000 for one month of trying to stay comfortable in their homes.
While you are attempting to stay warm or cool, you are wondering if you can afford to start your car. Americans are seeing gas prices dance between $4.00 and over $6.00 for one gallon of gas. Filling up my old truck is pushing toward $150 at a time. When my wife goes to the grocery store the same staples seem cost more every time she goes.
The current inflation is not only expensive but is chipping away at our peace. Peace? It’s hard to have peace if you go into cardiac arrest every time your utility bill arrives, you buy gasoline or go to the grocery store. If you are renting a place in America then you have a further burden as some Americans are paying over $2,000 a month to rent a house. If they can find one to rent.
Russia has destroyed Ukraine and has become a major player in driving up our cost of living. We were already experiencing inflation but the entire planet is reacting to what Russia is doing to Ukraine. Do you remember when we heard the news that Osama Bin Laden had been shot by one of our seal teams? When and how will the murderous rein of Vladimir Putin end? We must hope and pray for an end to this evil.
Unfortunately, the world is a difficult place for peace. The Bible assures us that in the last days there will be wars and rumors of wars. There will be pestilence, famine, and our hearts will fail us from fear. Thus, our peace must come from God who is greater than our problems. There is an internal strength and peace that comes when we focus our minds on Him. Currently millions of Ukrainians have nothing left but the shirts on their backs and whatever internal resolve and fortitude that is keeping them going.
Our peace in America is very unsettling but compare your situation to millions of Ukrainians today.
Pray for them and let us all give thanks for what we have.
Dr. Glenn Mollette is a syndicated American columnist and author of Grandpa's Store, American Issues, and ten other books. He is read in all 50 states. The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily representative of any other group or organization.
This article is the sole opinions of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of The Sentinel. We welcome comments and views from our readers. Submit your letters to the editor or commentary on a current event 24/7 to editor@oursentinel.com.
This week, Unity Junior High School announced the names of students who achieved honor roll and high honor roll status during the third quarter. Two hundred and twenty-two students earned the requisite grade-point average to be recognized as an honor student.
Will these weapons challenge our ethics and accountability thresholds? Most likely. But let’s explore a few of the considerations, moral and legal, through the prism of how people will be increasingly removed from battlefield decision-making as conflict unfolds at machine speed.
Militaries define autonomous weapons as "systems that, once activated, can select and engage targets without further intervention by a human operator."
So-called "intelligentized" systems that longer term will evolve to independently surveil, spot, identify, engage, and precisely target the adversary. And to do that with better ethical outcomes than when people are at the controls.
The core of these weapons’ “brain” is advanced artificial intelligence. The marrying of AI algorithms, deep machine learning, and massive data sets along with sophisticated technology will transform the world’s arsenals. The science and caution over removal of human operational control may zigzag, but the allure of intelligent, nimble, precise, fast and cheaper systems will prove irresistible.
Russia’s president Putin made no bones about this transformation, purportedly saying in a 2017 broadcast that "whoever becomes the leader in [AI] will become the ruler of the world." Hyperbole? Maybe; maybe not. Regardless, the force-multiplying intersection of artificial intelligence and weapons functionality will prove consequential.
Avoiding adversaries acquiring a monopoly on autonomous weapons will lead to the competitive leapfrogging of weapons design with which we’re historically familiar. A technological vaulting across military domains: land, ocean surface, undersea, air, and space. Nations will feel compelled not to cede ground to adversaries.
All the more reason we can’t lose sight of the ethical issues in this arena, where utilitarianism is definable as measures built into the decision loop to avoid or minimize harm to civilians’ lives and property. Yet, some people may view automated weapons as existential.
The question often asked is: Ought we trust machine autonomy to do war-fighting right, upholding our values? Maybe, however, the more pertinent question is this: Ought we continue to trust people to do war-fighting right, given the unpredictability of human decision-making and behavior?
The assumption is that humans are prone to errors exceeding those of a smart autonomous weapon. It’s more likely that a human controller will make assessments and miscues resulting in civilian casualties or attacks against hospitals, schools, homes and buildings of worship. Modern history is replete with such incidents, violating humanitarian law.
Machine precision, processing speed, analytical scope, ability to deconstruct complexity, handling of war’s chaotic nonlinearity, and ability to cut through war’s fog and friction intersect with ‘just-war doctrine’ to govern how to conduct war according to moral and legal principles — all of which matter greatly.
Human agency and accountability will transect decisions around how to design, program and deploy autonomous weapons, rather than visceral decisions by combatants on the battlefield. New grounds and precedents as to who’s responsible for outcomes.
Accountability will also be bound by the Geneva Conventions’ Martens Clause, which says this: “[C]ivilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of . . . international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience.”
There are no moral take-backs. Avoiding faulty calls, with unintended harm, is critical in calculating the appeal of replacing hands-on humans with the unbiased automaticity of machines. Autonomous weapons will outperform humans in regards to consistently implementing the ethical and legal imperatives whether conflicts are fought justly.
Such imperatives include discrimination to target only combatants; proportionality in line with the advantage; accountability of participants; and necessity in terms of the least-harmful military means chosen, like choice of weapons, tactics, and amount of force applied.
Treaty bans on systems’ development, deployment and use likely won’t stick, given furtive workarounds and the enticement of geostrategic advantage. Regulations, developed by multidisciplinary groups, to include ethicists along with technologists, policymakers and international institutions, are expected only spottily to slow the advance.
Ethics must be scrupulously factored into these calculations from the start — accounting for "principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience" — so that nations make policy with their moral charters intact.
