All language subtitles for Modern.Warfare.2.0.S01E01.Soldiers.of.the.Future.1080p.AMZN.WEB-DL.DDP2.0.H.264-RAWR_track3_[eng]

We went in that morning,

really not knowing what type

of enemy force to expect.

What we met was anywhere
between 600 to 1,000

of Saddam's best fighters,
his Fedayeen.

We are going to the extended
family of Saddam and his sons

on the north side
of Baghdad, Iraq.

I was part of a special
forces ODA.

I was acting as a sniper,
intelligence sergeant,

and also as a human
intelligence operative.

Next to me in the truck was
Willie Hemingway,

an absolute living legend
in special forces.

We had an intel analyst
stacked up

in the back of the open truck,

completely exposed
the entire time.

There were two
military branches,

other government agencies.

We were all on different
radio frequencies.

It felt like at no time
there was a central command.

Essentially, we were going
into blind territory.

Just before daybreak, I looked
to my right across the vehicle,

past Willie, into the darkness.

Heavy machine gun fire,
RPG fire, and grenades.

A well known gunnery sergeant
in that battalion

had just been killed in action.

The communications
had gone to crap...

...with all the smoke
from the enemy rounds.

In that moment, that's when
I realized that we might have

a technology problem, and it is
often the technology that can

tip the scales
in a fight like that.

We got through
a very bad, volatile,

and violent situation.

We didn't accomplish
the mission,

but that day
has stayed with me...

for a long time.

And you will have
every tool you need

to carry out your duty.

New technology is increasingly
arriving on the battlefield.

How do you
mentally and physically

prepare a soldier
for what is to come?

As war and weaponry have
evolved, armor and hardware

have raced to keep up.

Preserving soldiers' lives
is job number one.

Each war raises
equipment challenges

to be met the next war

and battlefield tested
by the next generation

of soldiers.

Counter to what many people
believe, humanity wasn't born

as a species to be violent
to one another.

Modern contemporary
archaeologists tell us

that there were societies
and communities that were able

to live peaceably together.

Now...

at some stage,
and it's well before

a written history of humanity,

we did start to see humanity
become violent.

And this is the point
at which humanity

becomes more interesting.

Humans are, by nature,
problem solvers.

And once the problem of hunting
was settled,

the next problem became
other humans.

Weapons to aid hunting,
to cause damage, and to kill,

have been part of every
piece of archaeology.

We know that they've
constructed spears,

knives, flint, bone.

They've always been
about the neatest, quickest,

most effective,
and efficient way to kill

without being injured yourself.

With the creation
of the bow and arrow,

both archaeological findings,
as well as cave paintings

and bone analysis, show that it
became the weapon of choice

in armed confrontations
between humans.

We see the sword,
which is a weapon

that is not designed
for hunting.

It is designed for combat.

There have been
many moments of change

in warfare and military
technology.

One of the earliest was,
in fact,

the invention or discovery
of metal and metalworking,

because then humans started
to make tools out of metal

and pretty much immediately
also weapons out of metal.

And that gave humans
new capabilities

to kill and injure each other.

Improvements in metallurgy

meant weapons could be
produced in bulk.

And once they were produced
in bulk, more and more armies

were able to have
the same weapons.

This led to the difference
on the battlefield

being made in tactics
and training.

That led to the dominance
of Alexander the Great

and later,
the Great Roman Empire.

And that kind of fighting,

where it became
professionalized,

became a very different way

of using technology and weapons.

They became specialized
for fighting

with your colleagues,

not just to protect yourself,

to protect your comrades
around you.

I think one way to look at it
is a lot of these leaps came

from what was the energy source?

If you're just, like,
using a big stick to beat

somebody up, you're using
your own muscle energy.

At some point,
we start domesticating animals,

so we don't just use animals
for transportation.

War elephants
where you're literally

using the elephant as a weapon.

We could categorize weapons

into four sets
of characteristics.

Damage or lethality.

Distance.

The precision with which
you can deliver it,

and finally,
the sort of repeatability,

the rate of fire that you can
achieve out of it.

Let's start with lethality.

The one thing that you wanna
be able to do when you're

in a fight is to put
your adversary down permanently.

That developed in a evolution,
as protection was added

to each combatant.

The second part of it
is distance,

how far you can reach.

One of the early game changers

was the invention
of the longbow.

The longbow kinda served
like artillery

before we ever had explosives.

It enabled an army to employ
people at a standoff distance,

where they're not right up
on the front line,

but still rain down lethality
from the sky.

The third characteristic
has always been precision.

The problem with firing
bows and arrows

is so many of them miss.

Tools like the Greek ballista,

or its smaller version,
the crossbow,

allowed you to hit individuals
more accurately

and to use less training to hit
people was really important.

The fourth aspect of this
is your repeatability,

the rate of fire.

Your ability to launch
not just one arrow,

but four arrows a minute.

The ability to hone and draw
together these characteristics

on the field of battle
determined the victor

at the end of the day.

Bows and ballistas were
effective, but warfare entered

a new explosive era
when weapons no longer depended

on physical power.

Warfare entered a new
explosive era

when weapons no longer depended
on physical power.

The Chinese alchemists who were
able to mix the black powder

and harness gunpowder's
explosive energy using

a metal tube gave birth
to the first firearms.

All of a sudden, you get a big
bang out of some gunpowder.

In the old days, it was as far
as you could throw a spear,

shoot an arrow, and that was
the natural limit of it.

If all of a sudden you can
start shooting something

for longer than you can
fire an arrow,

then the scale
of things changes.

The first cannons and mortars
were not accurate,

but the advantage was
they could be used against

hardened targets, and their use
caused panic in the ranks

of the enemy.

Their lethality was increased
when we started using shells

propelled by explosive charges,
and the shells were capable

of producing shrapnel.

It was going to be really
in the 19th century where

modern guns, as we'd understand
them today, began to develop.

The invention of the cartridge,
which reduced the loading time.

The first repeating systems,

like the Winchester
and Henry rifles,

alongside revolver
handguns in the 1830s,

increased the rate of fire
and made distant combat

and accuracy more frequent.

But the biggest invention that
we would record today would be

the arrival of machine guns

introduced during
the American Civil War.

Later, the machine gun
became the backbone

of military defenses.

One machine gun properly placed
could produce a river

of lethal fire covering
the entire defensive flank.

The machine gun's use
enabled infantry units

to repel large attacks
from much larger forces.

Then you start
taking fossil fuels or wood

and turning them into steam
or using them more directly

in internal combustion engines.

And if all of a sudden an army
moves faster than it can

on foot or on horseback
because of use of energy.

Once warfare gets so big
that you're doing things

at a greater distance,

so all of a sudden,
you can coordinate

a bigger mass of military force
spread out over a bigger area

and affecting a bigger area.
So that changes modern warfare.

Research has shown that
the most revolutionary changes

came out of new ways of using
a new technology.

The most typical example
of this is the tank.

The tank entered
the battlefield already in 1916,

but it took
until the Second World War

and the development
of a new doctrine

that really allowed the tank

to be used
to its full potential.

The technology changes.
The battlefield expands.

But the fundamentals of war
stay the same.

It's about how you understand
how to fight your adversary.

That interaction
between weapons,

between the attacker
and the defender,

remains as much a factor
today in modern weapons

as it did back for our ancestors
60,000 years ago.

It's not about
bravery or courage.

It's not about
an equal or a fair fight.

They've always been
about the neatest, quickest,

most effective,
and efficient way to kill

without being injured yourself.

The digital age is reshaping
almost every aspect

of modern warfare--

equipment, weaponry,
intelligence gathering,

and even
the individual soldier.

New technology is increasingly
arriving on the battlefield,

and that has greatly changed
changing the way

the average soldier fights.

This new generation of
super soldier

will look like something right
out of a video game.

So as a smart soldier evolves
here in the 21st century,

there's gonna be four areas
that are going to come together

to enhance and enact
this change.

First is offensive,
which is obviously development

of weapon systems
and weapon platforms

that the soldier can command
and control in the battlefield.

The second thing that we need
to think about,

that's the idea of armor,
of protection,

but it also includes deception,

it includes movement,
it includes maneuver,

it includes camouflage.

The other two areas are going
to be understanding

and having situational
awareness, having the ability

to synthesize, gather,
analyze, and use

vast amounts of data.

And the last part of it is,

before you even get
into combat, how to you mentally

and physically prepare
a soldier for what is to come.

We're always making and using
weapons that people

and agencies say that will be
the next best thing.

But the truth is, we're still
using firearms that send

projectiles out, that we've been
using for hundreds of years.

An important development
in warfare over the last decades

is the increase in precision
that weapons can achieve,

and also the increase
in firepower

that is now possible

thanks to technological
advances.

So weapons can hit
their targets in a more precise

way, helping to minimize
civilian casualties,

and less soldiers are needed
in order to achieve

the same level of firepower.

...attributed to
the urban warfare...

Built to the latest
aerial bombardment.

As the smoke clears,
the casualties appear.

Greater precision has become
crucial as warfare has moved

from battlefields
to populated, urban areas.

Over the last few decades,
urban warfare has become

prevalent in our conflicts.

And urban warfare comes
with its own unique challenges.

A key advantage would be
the development of weapons

that give you a standoff,
where you do not have to expose

yourself to fire in order
to engage the enemy.

During the Second World War,
the Germans introduced

the Krummlauf, or the curved
barrel, that would allow people

to shoot around corners.

This idea was first developed
during the First World War

when soldiers wanted periscopes
and used periscope attachments

in order to fire
from their trenches.

In the early 2000s, this was,
in many ways, perfected

by the Israeli Defense Force,
who designed the corner shot,

a regular gun and small digital
camera mounted on the front end,

while the shooter aimed
by a video display.

Now, instead of a soldier
having to peek

around the corner to identify
a target, they can actually use

a weapon that's meant to bend
around a hard object to get

a line of sight on a target
or a door or a passageway

without having to actually
expose a soldier.

India, China, and others
are developing

this kind of technology as well.

The biggest advancement
in the next 20 years will be

directed energy weapons.

"PHASR" stands for the Personnel
Halting and Stimulation

Response Rifle.

That is a prototype
of a non light lethal laser.

Its purpose is to temporarily
impair aggressors

by disorienting and blinding
them with the laser light

that the rifle emits.

I think an advantage
of the PHASR rifle

is that it allows you
to incapacitate an enemy

instead of having to kill them.

In the future, with a new class
of firearms,

a new class of weapons,

they will be the most
technologically advanced

and allow for the smallest
signature either attached

or on the soldier.

We will see
directed energy weapons

on the battlefield very soon.

They'll initially combat
drones and missiles,

and will change warfare,

and perhaps ultimately
reduce cost.

More powerful, smarter weapons
mean more powerful,

smarter gear
to protect soldiers.

But even the best gear is
useless if it hinders

readiness, forcing soldiers
like JD to make

tough life-and-death choices.

Back on April 10th, 2003,
I feel the fundamental issue

could have been lack
of good ballistic body armor.

Willie and I didn't wear
our helmets and body armor

because it was just too
cumbersome getting in and out

of the vehicle,
running the radios,

and especially running that gun
and reloading that gun.

If you look at pictures of me
from Afghanistan, I was

old school and shied away
from wearing too much equipment

in favor of more mobility.

Back then, the US Army's
improved outer tactical vest

could weigh
almost 30 pounds.

And by the time you added
weapons, batteries,

supplies, and other gear,
you were easily carrying

up to or over 100 pounds.

If you're wearing a lot of heavy
and cumbersome equipment,

it becomes almost impossible
to maneuver under fire.

And in my view,
that can get you killed.

There's always a guy
with a spreadsheet

and a PowerPoint slide
somewhere.

"Well, a soldier needs this,
a soldier needs that."

And it sort of adds up
to a huge burden on the soldier.

Here again,
technological advances

such as in nanotechnology
and new materials

can help to make armor lighter

and more effective,
less cumbersome,

and thus improve the ability
of a soldier to survive injuries

or survive being attacked.

The most important facet
of this body armor is

that it's not only designed
to capture the bullet,

but also disperse its kinetic
energy, both to avoid damage

and minimize the backwards
projection caused

by the impact, which could also
have lethal consequences

for the soldier.

In some cases, that armor is
modular, which means the soldier

or the operator can layer on
the necessary pieces of armor

that he or she needs,
depending on the conflict

or the battle
they're going into.

We have far more amputations
now than we did at one point

because the armor is very good
at protecting the core

and keeping a guy alive,
but his limbs are mangled.

One thing that probably has
saved more soldiers' lives

than any improvement in armor
or fortification is medicine,

emergency medicine
in particular.

In the past,
most soldiers didn't die

on the battlefield itself,

but rather later on,

they died from infection
and diseases.

So an injury that in the past
might have killed

you eventually, today might
keep you from the battlefield

just for a few days
or a few weeks.

The goal, of course,

is to avoid
getting injured at all.

That demands
not just better armor,

but better intelligence-
gathering and communication

to evade the enemy.

More powerful, smarter weapons
mean more powerful

smarter gear
to protect soldiers.

That demands not just better
armor but better intelligence

gathering and communication
to evaded the enemy

or to gain the upper hand.

Let me go back to 1987
when I joined the Army...

...your combat radio,
it was one per platoon,

so there'd be 30 guys, 40 guys,
and one radio.

And this radio was 20 pounds.

And you'd talk in a handset.

It was literally the same kind
of backpack radio that you saw

in the Vietnam films.

Throughout the Iraq war
and the Afghan war,

you saw the introduction
of various technology elements

into the hands of the operator.

Night vision goggles allows
the operator operators see

at night, but it has some
significant downfalls

because it does not work
in certain environments

where there's smog,
if there's a flash of light.

What you're starting to see now
are tools that allow

the operator to see through
infrared, which allows it

to function in all types
of ambient environments.

On the morning
of April 10, 2003,

I feel we had ariel coverage,
ariel intelligence,

but back in 2003 we could not
tie that information

into the battlefield
and then push that information

around the battlefield.

I feel that type of technology

would have been very
critical to our mission.

Maybe there would still be
some marines alive.

Basically, I'm here to announce
that we're building Iron Man.

How about Superman-like
X-ray vision

in the form of goggles
for soldiers?

Army scientists created
a new material

that rejects the sand particles,

saving the blades and keeping
future soldiers safe.

Battlefield gear has leapt
forward in the last 20 years.

Advances such
as integrated communication

and augmented vision systems,

strength-enhancing
exoskeleton suits,

and unmanned rifles

are in development
or already in place.

In May 2013, the US Army
announced "TALOS",

the Tactical Assault Light
Operator Suit,

was under development.

Some soldiers are already
being equipped with small

portable devices that link them
back to their headquarters

and commanders, enabling
a two-way flow of information.

Not just the soldier's view
of the battlefield,

but also the commander's view,
enabling the commander

to send instructions
and targeting information

back to the soldier
on the ground.

One thing being developed
is called microclimate clothing.

It's a new type of vest that
can keep you warm in the winter

or cool during the hot weather.

Now I feel the uniforms at some
point will also have

a medical capability,
whether it's sensors

within the uniform or a watch
or another piece of technology

that can keep other people
in the mission chain updated

on that person's
health and efficiency.

Modern soldiers
are being deployed with

their own drone, which will
provide aerial reconnaissance

and also send feeds
either from the drone

or the soldier
back to a central command.

I feel it's also important

that the individual soldier
protective gear,

it also has the communications
integrated in it.

I would like to see those
goggles provide a heads up

display, give that soldier
every piece of information

they need at that point,
standing wherever they are

on the battlefield,
and that soldier can push

information out to a central
command, pull information

from drones, anything flying
in the sky,

Exoskeleton-enabled suits are
being tested and used right now

in non-combat situations
where operators or soldiers

are using it to lift, transport,
and load certain items

that a human body
couldn't handle on its own.

TALOS should consist
of an advanced exoskeleton

be worn under an impenetrable
body armor that could provide

machine-like strength
to a soldier, complemented

with a computerized network
helmet that could increase

his tactical awareness.

Another remotely
operated weapon

is the Special Purpose
Unmanned Rifle, "SPUR",

that can not only be used
by snipers but also mounted.

It has an encrypted wireless
and advanced sensor that make it

able to shoot accurately
up to 1200 meters

in any visibility conditions.

This has the potential to turn
any ordinary soldier

into a sniper.

Recently, the US Army has
started to test the "IVAS",

or Integrated Visual
Augmented System.

That, besides superimposing
mixed reality data

over the soldier's vision, like
3D terrain maps and vital

information on the battlefield,
it also helps understand

and see through issues
like fog and smoke.

Soldiers can also update other
units, enabling every soldier

to be involved to fulfill
their tasks while supporting

each other in the most
effective way,

whilst minimizing casualties.

The software then processes
the information that allows

the command and control to have
a full picture of the situation

on the battlefield.

Despite all these advancements,
it's becoming really important

that we continue to focus
on the training and preparation

of each individual soldier.

Future soldiers will not just
have more powerful

weapons and techniques,

they'll be empowered
by real-time battlefield data,

enhanced communications,
better strategies,

and specialized training.

Today, we have much
smaller teams,

specialized across
different disciplines,

which provides
that small element

a great advantage.

Even by the time
of the Vietnam War,

something like only 10%

of the US Army in Vietnam
was an infantryman.

The guy who needs to drive
a truck eight to 12 hours a day

to keep the logistics running
has to have a different

attention span than the guy
who's screwing fuses

onto artillery shells
and throwing artillery shells

into the breach of a cannon.

That idea of someone being
physically and mentally

prepared to fight doesn't just
include the physical training,

the combined arms training.

but also his mental
preparedness to fight,

his readiness and willingness
to defend,

his understanding
of what he's fighting for,

not just the people to the left
and the right of him,

that traditional thing
that holds

a warrior formation
together,

but the values
that he's fighting for.

One part I think we missed
in my career,

I feel it could have made some
differences in Iraq,

is the psychology of mind,

or the performance psychology.

I can see huge amounts
of improvement in the behavioral

and psychological sciences.

There's programs now,
comprehensive soldier fitness

program, and a THOR program
within special forces,

Tactical Human
Optimization and Repair.

It can help with missions

on the battlefield, resiliency,
and adjustment

after you come back
and redeploy.

It could have helped
with the transition

out of the military.

We are also rethinking
the role of a soldier

within the armed forces,

at least in Western
or and liberal democracies.

Ever since the Second World
War, at least, there is now

an idea that soldiers should be
able to think for themselves

and also to be able to question
unlawful, immoral commands

that they may be given.

In the drive to create
enhancements for soldiers

and even to enhance soldiers
into super soldiers,

where do we draw the line?

Every military across time
has sought to increase

the performance
of individual soldiers.

The idea that some states
would conduct potentially

gene-editing or biological
enhancements

is not beyond belief.

According to a 2019 report,
the Chinese military was

actively exploring genetic
editing in order to create

a generation of super soldiers

that could resist harsh
weather conditions,

be immune to pain,

and able to fight
without the need to rest.

Some claim that Russia

could also be
conducting similar stuff.

This, on top of these
technologically advanced

weapons, is leading
to a Darwinian type

natural selection
in that new super soldier.

With the development of human
integrated technology,

many have raised
the possibility of one day

having cyborg soldiers
that could artificially be

better soldiers and endure
adverse situations.

No matter what advancements
we make, war really comes down

to killing as many of the enemy
as you can and losing as few

of your own people as possible.

With the advancement of some
of the new technology,

we may not even have to employ
our guys in the actual battle.

Future army robots will be
among the strongest

in the world if visionary
researchers have their way.

And a robot is making a big
splash in Afghanistan.

Soldiers who can operate them
are in demand

because they're saving lives
on the battlefield.

With features
such as 180-degree tilt cameras

and flippers that enable them
to maneuver

over the toughest terrains.

Having a robotic friend ready
to keep him safe from harm.

What you're starting to see is
units and squads that could

have a couple of dozen
to a couple of hundred members

reduce in size-- instead
of exposing an operator,

a human being,

you now have a robot that's
your eyes and ears on the tip

of the spear or going down
a dark hole.

Actually, the idea of replacing
humans on a battlefield

is not as recent
as we may imagine.

During the First World War,
the French introduced

what they called
"land torpedoes."

And in World War II,
the Germans had the Goliath,

and the Soviets the teletank.

In 1972, during the troubles
in Northern Ireland,

the British army introduced
the wheelbarrow as the first

remote controlled
bomb disposal system.

Since then, many bomb and mine
disposal squads have used

similar robots to dispose
of explosive devices at a safe

distance, including the TALON
system and its armless version,

the SOTALON,
that would be deployed

in the war against terror.

In 2007, the armed TALON
and Special Weapons Observation

Reconnaissance Detection
System, SWORDS, was born.

They would become
the very first robots

to be deployed in a war zone.

The first robots were equipped

with the M249 light machine gun,

but were used
for surveillance

and peacekeeping operations.

The fact that a new
semi-autonomous successor

for the SWORDS, named "MAARS,"

or the Modular Advanced Armed
Robotics Systems,

was already on the way,

only takes lethal action when it
receives coded instructions

and utilizes its AI.

The PITBULL from General
Robotics that can detect

and track and predict positions
of threats and friendlies.

The same manufacturer is also
developing the DOGO.

Weighing only ten kilograms,

it can fit
in the soldier's backpack

and help access places
a soldier can't.

Armed with a comm system

and a .9mm Glock pistol,

it can engage as required
without exposing the operator.

We also have the development
of legged robots.

The dog-like Vision 60 can run

at up to 10 kilometers an hour

for three hours
in difficult terrains

and under hard
climatic conditions,

carrying heavy equipment.

It can provide logistic support

or be armed with a remote
weapon system.

The British "MUTT", or Multiple
Utility Tactical Transport,

with full assault weapons
and automatic grenade launcher

mounts may evolve
into an out-of-the-loop system

at some stage in the future.

The downside of that is more
and more power is falling

into the hands of few.

So it's gonna be important
to make sure

that the right governance
is in place to regulate

the actions of the few.

Robots have proven
extremely useful in battle,

alongside or ahead of soldiers
that control them.

Their supporting role
is only going to grow

as tech gets
more sophisticated.

The more we rely
on technology,

the more we become
dependent on it.

I feel I could be classified
as an old school

special forces guy.

I grew up in 5th Special Forces
group in the '90s.

But here's the thing,
the Vietnam era guys taught us,

when the tech fails, how
do I continue and move forward

and continue
to engage the enemy?

A warrior is a warrior,
with or without his weapons.

How are they
when it comes down

to their primal instinct
to survive...

and fight for each other?

Humans are more important
than hardware.

I definitely feel today,
and even in the future,

the human will be
the most important part

of that battlefield equation.

The idea that somehow

technology and
technological advances

can remove the human
from the battlefield

and take them out of harm's way,

I think,
is largely an illusion.

In the end, it is important
to remember

that, in all likelihood, there
will be 18-year-old recruits

dying somewhere in muddy fields.

Machines have been killing...

people on their own for a while.

We just haven't talked about it.

A landmine is basically
an analog computer.

It's got a physical sensor
with a little bit of a circuit,

and you step on the landmine,
it blows somebody up.

So what we're doing is we're
just adding interesting

electronics on top
of that model.

Fortunately and unfortunately,
as we grow

towards those autonomous
robots on the battlefield,

I am a little concerned
there could be

communication and control
deficiencies between the human

and that autonomous device.

As military intelligence meets
artificial intelligence,

it raises ethical questions
regarding how much autonomy

robots should have,

or whether robots will replace
soldiers entirely.

In 2012, Human Rights Watch
categorized lethal autonomous

weapon systems as falling
into three categories.

A human is in the loop,
it's on the loop,

or out of the loop.

In essence, what that means
is when an AI system

or an autonomous device
that has lethal capabilities

makes the decision to kill,

is a human being making
that final go/no-go decision

on taking lethal action?

Human out-of-the-loop systems

are mostly defensive
in category.

Naval systems have always been
pushing the boundaries

of autonomous weapon deployment.

The ability to detect,
track, and engage multiple

missiles before they hit you is
the only way you can defeat

threats coming into a ship
without being sunk.

If other countries
go down the path of creating

autonomous weapon systems
driven by AI,

are we at a significant
disadvantage?

It's basically a situation

that we may not want to build
a Terminator,

but if the other
side does so, and we need one

to defend ourselves,
we will follow suit.

And that's exactly this
escalatory dynamic

of an arms race

that is very dangerous
and very destabilizing.

Most of the current
combat robots all have

humans in or on the loop.

The South Korean SGRA-1,

a robot sentry
designed and deployed

in the demilitarized zone
with North Korea--

its uncooled infrared
thermographic can detect

and identify humans
through voice recognition.

If the trespasser fails,
the system alone can choose

whether deploying
and sounding an alarm...

...firing rubber bullets,

or deploying
more lethal weapons.

Another South Korean system
is the Super Eagle Aegis II.

It has a warning system
and is then programmed

to shoot automatically.

When you're in that kind
of circumstance, who's to say

that those safeguards
can't be removed?

You can't hack a gun,
you can't hack a sword

or a shield or an arrow,
but you can hack a drone.

We should carefully consider
before we take out

that final human check.

Sometimes, it's just that raw
human emotion and instinct

that causes you to hesitate
when you're ready

to pull the trigger
on a suspected terrorist.

And sometimes that instinct
proves right.

I myself have
entered a building,

and I was prepared to kill
the people I encountered.

But as I saw people running
inside, something made me stop.

Would a machine
be able to do that?

That's something that we have
to consider as we go forward.

One of the challenges is what
is called a responsibility gap.

If an autonomous or AI-enabled
system does something

it wasn't so-called
"told to do,"

who would take responsibility?

In the end, things that are
technologically possible

tend to be developed,

and they tend to be then used
in extreme cases.

And war, by definition,
is an extreme case.

As all of our weapon systems
become more interrelated,

interconnected, we need
a good system of morality,

laws, and ethics
to guide the systems

that we create and deploy.

We're just a few bad decisions
from being there.

And although this sounds like
Sci-Fi, that long term future

could be in our immediate
future if we're not careful.