Automated Warfare: China’s Deadly New Battlefield Robots

As a full-blown Technocracy, it is no surprise that China would engineer warfare with heavily-armed robots that can devastate a battlefield. The arms race to equal or better China is also in full-bloom in the U.S. and Russia. Technocrats build simply because they can.  ⁃ TN Editor

Capable of carrying a machine gun, the small ground robot can traverse complicated terrains and replace human soldiers in dangerous reconnaissance missions. Photo: Screenshot from China Central Television.

More robot warriors are entering the arsenal of the Chinese military, with the latest additions being a small model that’s equipped with a machine gun and a crane-like missile-loading robot, and experts said on Tuesday that robots will free human soldiers from heavy physical work and unnecessary danger.

The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is in possession of the small ground robot, which can traverse complicated terrains, accurately observe battlefield situations and provide ferocious firepower, the PLA Eastern Theater Command said on Sina Weibo on Monday when reposting a China Central Television (CCTV) report on the robot.

The thigh-high robot looks like a small assault vehicle. It walks on tracks similar to a tank, allowing it to adapt to complicated terrains in open field combat, move quickly and climb stairs, CCTV reported.

Equipped with a machine gun, and observation and detection equipment including night vision devices, the robot can replace a human soldier in dangerous reconnaissance missions, the report said. Target practice results showed the robot has acceptable accuracy, and the use of weapons still requires human control.

New robot warriors joining the Chinese military have gradually become the norm, CCTV said.

Read full story here…

U.S. Navy Launches Autonomous Killer Submarine

Of course, the military has consistently lied about not intending to build killer robot drones, and then it builds one anyway.  This is the nature of Technocrats: say whatever is necessary to get critics off their backs so that the ‘work’ can continue. ⁃ TN Editor

Meet the Orca, a 50 ton undersea drone armed with high-tech sensors capable of several attack options, including torpedoes, able to wage a stealth-like war under the ocean surface without a single human being in tow.

According to a special report from Kris Osborn at National Interest, earlier this year, Boeing was awarded a US$43 million deal to build four Orcas for the US Navy.

The XL-UUV (Extra Large Unmanned Undersea Vehicle) Orca is based upon Echo Voyager and Echo Ranger undersea drones, said Capt. Pete Small, Program Manager for Unmanned Systems, Naval Sea Systems Command.–X757wc

The latter is an 84-foot long, massive underwater drone able to reach depths of 11,000 feet and hit ranges up to 6,500 nautical miles, the report said.

The drone has obstacle avoidance, substantial carrying capacity of up to 34-feet, autonomous buoyancy and Synthetic Aperture Sonar, the report said.

Extra Large UUVs, such as Boeing’s Orca, are certainly large enough to accommodate weapons payloads, and it seems such an option is entirely feasible, depending upon the pace of undersea connectivity and fire control, the report said.

It goes without saying that use of any kind of lethal force would, according to Pentagon doctrine, require a human functioning in a role of command and control.

An interesting essay from the National Academy of Sciences, called “Military Robotics: Latest Trends and Spatial Grasp Solutions,” cites the unprecedented advantage of being able to send large undersea drones through the open ocean for as long as 70-days.

An undersea sensing UUV introduces a new realm of combat strategies and tactics. First and foremost would simply be an opportunity for greater undersea security and stealth, the report said.

Given the high-risk nature of its mission scope, an attack submarine could greatly benefit from an increased ability to conduct reconnaissance missions close to enemy shorelines and in the open ocean — while remaining undetected.

Read full story here…

Eric Schmidt

Trilateral Commission Member Eric Schmidt Leads AI Ethics Board

The Pentagon is leading the way to create ethics standards for the use of AI in warfare as well as civilian government. Who is Chairman of the Defense Innovation Board? Trilateral Commission member and ex-CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt!

Schmidt, who ran Google under the credo “Do no evil” and then proceeded to use AI to dominate the Internet, censorship, political candidates, etc., is now the dominant force on the panel that is creating the ethical standards for the use of AI is government and warfare.

Also sitting on the board is Walter Isaacson, former President of the Aspen Institute and of the Trilateral Commission. ⁃ TN Editor

The Pentagon is adopting new ethical principles as it prepares to accelerate its use of artificial intelligence technology on the battlefield.

The new principles call for people to “exercise appropriate levels of judgment and care” when deploying and using AI systems, such as those that scan aerial imagery to look for targets.

They also say decisions made by automated systems should be “traceable” and “governable,” which means “there has to be a way to disengage or deactivate” them if they are demonstrating unintended behavior, said Air Force Lt. Gen. Jack Shanahan, director of the Pentagon’s Joint Artificial Intelligence Center.

The Pentagon’s push to speed up its AI capabilities has fueled a fight between tech companies over a $10 billion cloud computing contract known as the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure, or JEDI. Microsoft won the contract in October but hasn’t been able to get started on the 10-year project because Amazon sued the Pentagon, arguing that President Donald Trump’s antipathy toward Amazon and its CEO Jeff Bezos hurt the company’s chances at winning the bid.

An existing 2012 military directive requires humans to be in control of automated weapons but doesn’t address broader uses of AI. The new U.S. principles are meant to guide both combat and non-combat applications, from intelligence-gathering and surveillance operations to predicting maintenance problems in planes or ships.

The approach outlined Monday follows recommendations made last year by the Defense Innovation Board, a group led by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

Read full story here…

Wuhan Institute

BioWeapons Expert Says Coronavirus Is Biological Warfare Weapon

Technocrat scientists around the world are using CRISPR technology in top-secret labs to develop doomsday-type biological warfare weapons. The Wuhan Institute of Virology is such a center, and the most likely source of the coronavirus outbreak.

TN does not endorse either GreatGameIndia or Dr. Francis Boyle, but the globalist censorship is notable and significant. For instance, the globalist publication, Foreign Policy, strongly refuted the “conspiracy theory” on January 29 with the headline, The Wuhan Virus Is Not a Lab-Made Bioweapon, and attacked GreatGameIndia and ZeroHedge in particular. ZeroHedge has been permanently banned from Twitter.  ⁃ TN Editor

In an explosive interview Dr. Francis Boyle, who drafted the Biological Weapons Act has given a detailed statement admitting that the 2019 Wuhan Coronavirus is an offensive Biological Warfare Weapon and that the World Health Organization (WHO) already knows about it.

Francis Boyle is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He drafted the U.S. domestic implementing legislation for the Biological Weapons Convention, known as the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, that was approved unanimously by both Houses of the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush.

In an exclusive interview given to Geopolitics and Empire, Dr. Boyle discusses the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, China and the Biosafety Level 4 laboratory (BSL-4) from which he believes the infectious disease escaped. He believes the virus is potentially lethal and an offensive biological warfare weapon or dual-use biowarfare weapons agent genetically modified with gain of function properties, which is why the Chinese government originally tried to cover it up and is now taking drastic measures to contain it. The Wuhan BSL-4 lab is also a specially designated World Health Organization (WHO) research lab and Dr. Boyle contends that the WHO knows full well what is occurring.

Dr. Boyle also touches upon GreatGameIndia‘s exclusive report Coronavirus Bioweapon – where we reported in detail how Chinese Biowarfare agents working at the Canadian lab in Winnipeg were involved in the smuggling of Coronavirus to Wuhan’s lab from where it is believed to have been leaked.

Watch Dr. Francis Boyle’s interview with Geopolitics and Empire below:

Dr. Boyle’s position is in stark contrast to the mainstream media’s narrative of the virus being originated from the seafood market, which is increasingly being questioned by many experts.

Recently, American Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas also dismantled the mainstream media’s claim on Thursday that pinned the coronavirus outbreak on a market selling dead and live animals.

In a video accompanying his post, Cotton explained that the Wuhan wet market (which Cotton incorrectly referred to as a seafood market) has been shown by experts to not be the source of the deadly contagion.

Cotton referenced a Lancet study which showed that many of the first cases of the novel coronavirus, including patient zero, had no connection to the wet market — devastatingly undermining mainstream media’s claim.

“As one epidemiologist said: ‘That virus went into the seafood market before it came out of the seafood market.’ We still don’t know where it originated,” Cotton said.

“I would note that Wuhan also has China’s only bio-safety level four super laboratory that works with the world’s most deadly pathogens to include, yes, coronavirus.”

Such concerns have also been raised by J.R. Nyquist, the well known author of the books “Origins of the Fourth World War” and “The Fool and His Enemy,” as well as co-author of “The New Tactics of Global War”. In his insightful article he published secret speechs given to high-level Communist Party cadres by Chinese Defense Minister Gen. Chi Haotian explaining a long-range plan for ensuring a Chinese national renaissance – the catalyst for which would be China’s secret plan to weaponiz viruses.

Nyquist gave three different data points for making his case in analyzing Coronavirus. He writes:

The third data point worth considering: the journal GreatGameIndia has published a piece titled “Coronavirus Bioweapon – How China Stole Coronavirus From Canada And Weaponized It.”

Read full story here…

Killer Robots: Still No International Laws To Govern Their Use

Technocrats in militaries around the world are in a pitched arms race to develop fully autonomous killer robots. Proponents claim that it will make warfare more efficient and yet more ‘humane’ because fewer people would be killed.

This is insane thinking. The risk of misuse by rogue and authoritarian government and terrorists is 100 percent. However, Technocrats invent because the can, not because there is a demonstrated need to do so. ⁃ TN Editor

Countries are rapidly developing “killer robots” – machines with artificial intelligence (AI) that independently kill – but are moving at a snail’s pace on agreeing global rules over their use in future wars, warn technology and human rights experts.

From drones and missiles to tanks and submarines, semi-autonomous weapons systems have been used for decades to eliminate targets in modern day warfare – but they all have human supervision.


Nations such as the United States, Russia and Israel are now investing in developing lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) which can identify, target, and kill a person all on their own – but to date there are no international laws governing their use.

“Some kind of human control is necessary … Only humans can make context-specific judgements of distinction, proportionality and precautions in combat,” said Peter Maurer, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

“(Building consensus) is the big issue we are dealing with and unsurprisingly, those who have today invested a lot of capacities and do have certain skill which promise advantages to them, are more reluctant than those who don’t.”

The ICRC oversaw the adoption of the 1949 Geneva Conventions that define the laws of war and the rights of civilians to protection and assistance during conflicts and it engages with governments to adapt these rules to modern warfare.

AI researchers, defence analysts and roboticists say LAWS such as military robots are no longer confined to the realm of science fiction or video games, but are fast progressing from graphic design boards to defence engineering laboratories.

Within a few years, they could be deployed by state militaries to the battlefield, they add, painting dystopian scenarios of swarms of drones moving through a town or city, scanning and selectively killing their targets within seconds.

Death by Algorithm

This has raised ethical concerns from human rights groups and some tech experts who say giving machines the power of life and death violates the principles of human dignity.

Not only are LAWS vulnerable to interference and hacking which would result in increased civilian deaths, they add, but their deployment would raise questions over who would be held accountable in the event of misuse.

“Don’t be mistaken by the nonsense of how intelligent these weapons will be,” said Noel Sharkey, chairman of the International Committee for Robot Arms Control.

“You simply can’t trust an algorithm – no matter how smart – to seek out, identify and kill the correct target, especially in the complexity of war,” said Sharkey, who is also an AI and robotics expert at Britain’s University of Sheffield.

Read full story here…

Amazon Bezos

Big Tech Technocrats Embrace Military Technocrats

In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower warned about the military/industrial complex and the scientific elite in the same breath, lest we ‘become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.’ Big Tech and the Pentagon are chock full of Technocrats.

Bezos’ warning that Big Tech and the Pentagon need to be be tightly affiliated is a clear sign that Technocrats are in control of both.⁃ TN Editor

Amazon CEO and founder Jeff Bezos gave a dismal outlook for the nation if U.S. tech companies decide to not support the Pentagon’s war business.

“If big tech is going to turn their backs on the Department of Defense, this country is in trouble, that just can’t happen,” Bezos said at the annual Reagan National Defense Forum in Simi Valley, California.

“Look I understand these are emotional issues, that’s okay, we don’t have to agree on everything, but this is how we are going to do it, we are going to support the Department of Defense. This country is important,” he added.

As Silicon Valley courts a closer relationship with the Pentagon, tech firms have faced backlash for pursuing lucrative Defense Department contracts.

Last year, Google announced that it was working with the U.S. military to analyze drone videos by using artificial intelligence.

The controversial contract, dubbed Project Maven, caused thousands of employees to protest the initiative.

In the wake of the firestorm, Google decided to not renew the contract upon its expiry in March 2019.

Loosely referencing the sequence of events in the wake of Google’s Project Maven, Bezos said that tech firms should support the U.S. military’s efforts.

“I know it’s complicated but you know, do you want a strong national defense or don’t you? I think you do. So we have to support that,” he said.

“We are the good guys, I really do believe that,” Bezos said.


Professor: UN Might Use Military To Enforce Climate Agenda

Speaking of the 2011 Greece crisis, this professor says, “There were decisions that were made for them and then they just had to have a more or less technocratic government and get it through.” Now, the United Nations is in the same predicament with nations not adopting its bogus climate change agenda. This gives expression to Al Gore’s statement ‘deniers deserve to be punished. ⁃ TN Editor

Action to address climate change has been left so late that any political response will likely become an international security issue — and could threaten democracy.

That’s the view of Ole Wæver, a prominent international relations professor at the University of Copenhagen, who also says climate inaction could lead to armed conflict.

“At some point this whole climate debate is going to tip over,” he tells RN’s Late Night Live.

“The current way we talk about climate is one side and the other side. One side is those who want to do something, and the other is the deniers who say we shouldn’t do anything.”

He believes that quite soon, another battle will replace it. Then, politicians that do ‘something’ will be challenged by critics demanding that policies actually add up to realistic solutions.

When decision-makers — after delaying for so long — suddenly try to find a shortcut to realistic action, climate change is likely to “be securitised”.

Professor Wæver, who first coined the term “securitisation”, says more abrupt change could potentially threaten democracy.

“The United Nations Security Council could, in principle, tomorrow decide that climate change is a threat to international peace and security,” he says.

“And then it’s within their competencies to decide ‘and you are doing this, you are doing this, you are doing this, this is how we deal with it’.”

A risk of armed conflict?

Professor Wæver says despite “overwhelmingly good arguments” as to why action should be taken on climate change, not enough has been done.

And he says that could eventually lead to a greater risk of armed conflict, particularly in unstable political climates.

“Imagine these kinds of fires that we are seeing happening [in Australia] in a part of Africa or South-East Asia where you have groups that are already in a tense relationship, with different ethnic groups, different religious orientations,” he says.

“And then you get events like this and suddenly they are not out of each other’s way, they’ll be crossing paths, and then you get military conflicts by the push.”

He isn’t the first expert to warn of the security risks of climate change.

Chris Barrie, former Defence Force chief and honorary professor at the ANU’s Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, wrote in October that “climate change is a threat multiplier”.

“It exacerbates the drivers of conflict by deepening existing fragilities within societies, straining weak institutions, reshaping power balances and undermining post-conflict recovery and peacebuilding,” he wrote.

And current Defence chief Angus Campbell has warned that increased incidences of climate change-related natural disasters could stretch the capability of the ADF.

Letting ‘the dark forces’ loose

Professor Wæver argues that delayed action will lead to more drastic measures.

“The longer we wait, the more abrupt the change has to be,” he says.

“So a transformation of our economy and our energy systems that might have been less painful if we had started 20 years ago, 30 years ago.

“If we have to do that in a very short time, it becomes extremely painful.”

He says classifying climate change as a security issue could justify more extreme policy responses.

“That’s what happens when something becomes a security issue, it gets the urgency, the intensity, the priority, which is helpful sometimes, but it also lets the dark forces loose in the sense that it can justify problematic means,” he says.

This urgency, he says, could lead to more abrupt action at an international level.

“If there was something that was decided internationally by some more centralised procedure and every country was told ‘this is your emission target, it’s not negotiable, we can actually take military measures if you don’t fulfil it’, then you would basically have to get that down the throat of your population, whether they like it or not,” he says.

“A bit like what we saw in southern Europe with countries like Greece and the debt crisis and so on.

“There were decisions that were made for them and then they just had to have a more or less technocratic government and get it through.”

Read full story here…


Army DEVCOM: 2050 Vision For Cyborg Super-Soldiers

Scientific Progressivism is the lust of Technocrats and the scourge of humanity. Hacking the human body to create more efficient high-tech killing machines cannot possibly advance humanity. ⁃ TN Editor

Future armies could be made up of half-human half-machine cyborgs with infrared sight, ultrasonic hearing and super-human strength, equipped with mind-controlled weapons.

In a US Army report, experts from Devcom – the Combat Capabilities Development Command – outlined a number of possible future technologies that could be used to enhance soldiers on the battlefield by 2050.

These include enhanced limbs for increased strength, an eye that provides infrared and ultraviolet vision, and an audio device that provides ultra- and subsonic hearing.

They also suggest a future soldier could have a neural device that optimises brain power and allow them to control weapons with their mind.

The ‘thought experiment’ involved dozens of scientists, military personnel, ethicists and other experts discussing future technologies, what impact cyborgs would have on society and how it would change warfare.

The term ‘cyborg’ was first coined in a NASA study on the long-term impact of space study by Manfred Clynes and Nathan Cline.

The word is a portmanteau formed from cybernetic organism and is an organism that has been optimised by creating interactions between flesh and machine.

The study involved breaking down the future design of a cyborg soldier into the main areas of enhancement likely to be possible by 2050.

They examined changes to the eyes, ears, brain and muscular system through four ‘case studies’ examining the different technologies that could be developed and what impact they would have on society and warfare.

The study predicted that human machine enhancements would become widely available before 2050 and likely be led by medical use rather than the military.

‘The healthcare market will fuel human machine enhancements primarily to augment the loss of functionality from injury or disease’, the report claims.

Devcon suggests that as well as being better fighters, enhancing soldiers with technology could improve their chance of survival if hit during battle.

‘One could argue that failure to invest in responsible development of these potentially lifesaving technologies would be unethical.’

Authors of the report suggest that a lot of work would need to be done on changing ‘hearts and minds’ to make people more receptive of adapted soldiers, especially after they return to civilian life.

They say that an individual re-entering civilian life with enhanced abilities would have a defined competitive advantage over non-enhanced individuals.

The team questioned whether soldiers with enhancements should be ‘throttled’ back to a normal level when entering society and if so what normal levels should be.

They also raised concerns over national security.

One participant in the study said: ‘If I can’t walk into a sensitive compartmented information facility wearing an iWatch or carrying a cellphone, how will security be confident it is safe to allow a cyborg to walk in there?’

This was just a thought experiment and we are unlikely to see an ‘enhanced soldier’ with all of these changes by 2050, however there is some suggestion in the report that part, if not all of the technologies could be fairly common within 30 years.

Read full story here…

DARPA: ‘Militarized Microbes’ To Spread GMO Bacteria

DARPA is piled high with Technocrats who invent advanced military applications for the armed forces. Ethical and moral considerations are foreign to the discussion as to the wisdom of building dystopian killing machines. ⁃ TN Editor

The Pentagon’s DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) wants to be able to spread genetically modified bacteria as “explosives sensors.” The United States government could very well be looking into ways to militarize microbes.

The Pentagon has teamed up with Raytheon for this project, which seems like it should come straight out of a dystopian science fiction story. The government wants to develop a system capable of delivering genetically modified bacteria underground, according to a report by RT.

Initiated by DARPA, the same agency that led programs to create telekinetic super soldiers and weaponized robotic insects, the project seeks to program two bacterial strains to monitor ground surfaces for explosive materials, defense contractor Raytheon said in a joint press release with the Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

So the genetically modified bacteria are for your own good!

The first of the two strains, known as a “bio-sensor,” will “detect the presence or absence of explosives buried underground,” while the second will produce a “glowing light” in the event such materials are found. Remotely operated cameras or drones would then be sent to survey the area to find the glowing germs, and ultimately the buried explosives. –RT

We already know that some bacteria can be programmed to be very good at detecting explosives, but it’s harder underground,” said Raytheon researcher Allison Taggart. “We’re investigating how to transport the reporting bacteria to the required depth underground.”

Though the Pentagon claims it only plans to use the system for defensive purposes only, some may find the idea of militarized microbes off-putting while conjuring apocalyptic scenarios of a runaway genetically engineered superbug.

DARPA has undertaken some projects that should raise the alarm in many. However, it almost seems as though we’ve reached a point where the masses don’t care what’s being done to them, in their name, and with the money stolen from them. And these are just a few of the things we know DARPA is working on.

Read full story here…

killer robots

Microsoft Head Says Rise Of Killer Robots Is ‘Unstoppable’

A new global arms race? Forget nukes, it’s killer robots. Any nation or terrorist group with a screwdriver can join the melee to build killer robots. To the Technocrat mindset, it’s a much more efficient way to destroy things and kill people. ⁃ TN Editor

The rise of killer robots is now unstoppable and a new digital Geneva Convention is essential to protect the world from the growing threat they pose, according to the President of the world’s biggest technology company.

In an interview with The Telegraph, Brad Smith, president of Microsoft, said the use of ‘lethal autonomous weapon systems’ poses a host of new ethical questions which need to be considered by governments as a matter of urgency.

He said the rapidly advancing technology, in which flying, swimming or walking drones can be equipped with lethal weapons systems – missiles, bombs or guns – which could be programmed to operate entirely or partially autonomously, “ultimately will spread… to many countries”.

The US, China, Israel, South Korea, Russia and the UK are all developing weapon systems with a significant degree of autonomy in the critical functions of selecting and attacking targets.

The technology is a growing focus for many militaries because replacing troops with machines can make the decision to go to war easier.

But it remains unclear who is responsible for deaths or injuries caused by a machine – the developer, manufacturer, commander or the device itself.

Smith said killer robots must “not be allowed to decide on their own to engage in combat and who to kill” and argued that a new international convention needed to be drawn up to govern the use of the technology.

“The safety of civilians is at risk today. We need more urgent action, and we need it in the form of a digital Geneva Convention, rules that will protect civilians and soldiers.”

Speaking at the launch of his new book, Tools and Weapons, at the Microsoft store in London’s Oxford Circus, Smith said there was also a need for stricter international rules over the use of facial recognition technology and other emerging forms of artificial intelligence.

“There needs to be there needs to be a new law in this space, we need regulation in the world of facial recognition in order to protect against potential abuse.”

Read full story here…