America is no longer buying energy or vodka from Russia. Russians can no longer buy a McDonald’s hamburger. They can’t pay for their gasoline with a Visa, Mastercard or even an American Express card. One thousand Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurants have ceased operations in Russia. How tough can life become?
For a better picture of a tough life watch some of the news clips played daily on most television stations. See what the Russians are doing each day to Ukraine. Hospitals are bombed. Babies are murdered. Cities no longer exist. Tens of thousands have been killed by the Russian army.
Speculations continue to be expressed among politicians and journalists that Russia may be guilty of war crimes. This seems like a bad joke. Russia has been guilty of war crimes from day one. They don’t care who they kill or how they kill the innocent people of Ukraine. They will use any kind of bomb or chemical to accomplish President Vladimir Putin’s evil whim to bring Ukraine under Russian rule. They will even accept weapons from China.
Hopefully we will never buy another thing from Russia. In the meantime, the remnant still battling the Russian Army needs the full support of NATO in weapons, money and humanitarian aid. Sadly, for the thousands who have already been killed it’s too little too late.
While we are unplugging trade with Russia we must act accordingly toward China. China is not our friend. Just like Russia, we have made China rich with billions of dollars in trade each year. Plus, America is in debt, over a trillion dollars, to China. Stores across America must put American businesses back to work by buying as many American made products as possible. China has been eyeing Taiwan the same way Russia has been eyeing Ukraine. If Russia successfully takes Ukraine and can survive the aftermath look for China to invade Taiwan. China will then control most of the chips made that runs our cars, phones and computers.
The next scenario is what happens to us when Russia and China combine their efforts toward the United States? Are we able to withstand an attack from Russia and China? It’s more than we want to comprehend today. This is why we must become energy independent. Why not use our gas, oil and coal until we have the infrastructure in place to run electric cars?
In my local community of 250,000 people, I do not know of one electric car charging station. Local car dealers say it will be two to three years before they will have electric cars to sell. Most American communities are the same and we need time for the infrastructure to catch up. In the meantime, we should use the resources we have to run our country independently.
Gasoline prices and inflation are hurting America but consider what Russia is doing to Ukraine. Americans will survive the pain at the pump if America will go back to our own sources to supply our needs.
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.
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.
As written, the amendment to HB 5412 would require general contractors to pay the wages of a subcontractors’ employees, even if the prime contractor has already paid the subcontractor in full. However, those opposed to the bill say the measure would do the exact opposite.
"Opponents feel it would do nothing to prevent Wage Theft, but only encourage it by allowing rogue subcontractors to get off the hook by not paying their workers," states a press release from Black Contractors Owners & Executives/Hispanic American Construction Industry Association this week. According to the release, payment for wages will become "the responsibility onto the prime contractor, while allowing these bad apples to move onto the next job and underbid legitimate contractors since they have no payroll costs."
The Federation of Women Contractors, an advocacy organization that protects the interests of women-owned construction firms said that should HB5412 passes, it would be damaging to her members and result in many of them going out of business.
"For our members who are small businesses, any increase in cost has a catastrophic impact on the financial health of their companies and their ability to compete in the marketplace," said Jaemie Neely, Executive Director for the association. "We oppose HB5412 because it would not prevent or deter unethical subcontractors from stealing wages from their employees but rather the bill would expose general contractors to a risk of having to pay twice for wages and we think our alternative amendment is a much better solution."
Fourteen other professional organizations, from the building industry to mechanical contractors, are fighting the proposal that has the backing of the Mid-America Carpenters Regional Council.
The Associated Builders & Contractors, Black Contractors Owners & Executives, Chicago Chamber of Commerce, Chicago & Downstate Roofing Contractors Association, Chicago Area General Contractors, Hispanic American Construction Industry Association, Home Builders Association of IL, IL Chamber of Commerce, IL Chemical Industry Council, IL Construction Industry Council, IL Manufacturers Association, Il Mechanical & Specialty Contractors Association, IL Road & Transportation Builders Association, and the Women’s Construction Owners & Executives are against HB 5412.
Jacqueline Gomez, Executive Director of Hispanic American Construction Industry Association said HB 5412 would lock out future entrepreneurs from the construction industry and increase the costs for clients. "Punishing good companies for a few bad apples is a bad idea."
The committee asked the sponsor for additional revisions before HB 5412 goes in front of the house for a final vote.
