Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Space & Defense Technology

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


The legality of cloaking

This is a discussion on The legality of cloaking within the Space & Defense Technology forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Interesting article... Experts say 'invisibility cloaks' for military tech could breach Geneva Conventions » TechWorm BY KAVITA IYER ON MARCH ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old March 23rd, 2016   #1
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
The legality of cloaking

Interesting article...

Experts say 'invisibility cloaks' for military tech could breach Geneva Conventions » TechWorm

BY KAVITA IYER ON MARCH 23, 2016 TECHNOLOGY

British troops Harry Potter-style ‘invisibility cloak’ could be breaching the Geneva Conventions

British troops have been testing a Harry Potter-style ‘invisibility cloak’ that makes them disappear on the battlefield. However, a military lawyer has warned that this could breach the Geneva Conventions on the rules of war.

According to ex-air commodore Bill Boothby, who previously worked as the deputy director of the UK’s Royal Air Force legal services, hiding weapons from view and disguising fighter jets could well breach the universally agreed rules of armed conflict.

Researchers from the Iowa State University recently published a paper in Nature that describes a new material that can suppress radar waves up to 75%. The scientists embedded split ring resonators containing Galinstan in silicon sheets, creating an invisibility cloak that is capable of hiding a fighter jet from radar, at least in theory.

Galinstan is a metal alloy that becomes liquid at room temperature and isn’t as toxic as mercury, which acts similarly. The rings create electric inductors and the gaps create electric capacitors, resulting a resonator is capable of trapping and suppressing radar waves.

When an object is covered in this material, radar waves are suppressed from all angles and directions, though it’s not a technology that’s 100% effective just yet.

“A 3D illustration of a metasurface skin cloak made from an ultrathin layer of nanoantennas (gold blocks) covering an arbitrarily shaped object. Light reflects off the cloak (red arrows) as if it were reflecting off a flat mirror.”

While basic cloaking technology exists already, Boothby believes that the next generation of improvements could get armies and air forces into territory that’s technically illegal.

“Conventional camouflage aimed, for example, at causing the enemy to blend into the background, is lawful and bending light might be regarded simply as a technologically sophisticated way of achieving that outcome,” he told The Guardian. However, if camouflage is used by soldiers and vehicles to pretend to be non-combatants, that could be a problem.

Also forbidden is the misuse of enemy, UN, protective or neutral signs, and flags and symbols. Those involved in combat are obliged to wear a fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance and to carry arms openly – conditions that could be violated as ‘invisibility cloak’ technology is developed further.

In his new book, Weapons and the Law of Armed Conflict, Boothby explains, “A combatant whose weapon is rendered invisible by its coating is arguably not complying with the minimal requirements [of the Conventions].”

Adaptiv camouflage system, which is currently developed by US-based company, Bae Systems (whose slogan appears to be “If the enemy cannot see you, he cannot fire at you!”) is one of the technologies under scrutiny from Boothby.

This system can make a vehicle match the same heat pattern and effectively become invisible by picking up infrared readings of the background surroundings. Or the system can be used to turn a tank into something that looks like a civilian car on enemy radars, which again might not fit into the rules of war laid down by the Geneva Conventions.

In his book, Boothby also points towards the problem of killer drones that can work without any kind of human intervention. He says that these types of weapons should remain legal, as long as there are human supervisors present who can make calls between civilian and military targets. However, during combat, the supervisor’s workload should be low enough to “ensure that proper decisions are made.”

“An outright ban of autonomy in weapon systems is premature and inappropriate, difficult to enforce and perhaps easy to circumvent,” he told The Guardian. “Existing law should be applied to this as to any other technology in warfare.”
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2016   #2
Moderator
General
ngatimozart's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,199
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
Interesting, but at sea it is legal to disguise commerce raiders as merchant ships as long as the raider showed their true colours prior to commencing combat. The same on land where one could wear enemy uniforms as a ruse de guerre, provided that you fought in your own uniform when combat was initiated. Hence I would argue that cloaking technology is legal as long as you uncloaked prior to initiating combat with the enemy. The fine print would be around how much warning should you give the enemy.
________________
"There is one immutable truth we cannot prevent; war is coming, we just dont know when or where." Brigadier Andrew Harrison DSO MBE
ngatimozart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2016   #3
Potstirrer
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: not in New England anymore...
Posts: 3,839
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngatimozart View Post
Interesting, but at sea it is legal to disguise commerce raiders as merchant ships as long as the raider showed their true colours prior to commencing combat. The same on land where one could wear enemy uniforms as a ruse de guerre, provided that you fought in your own uniform when combat was initiated. Hence I would argue that cloaking technology is legal as long as you uncloaked prior to initiating combat with the enemy. The fine print would be around how much warning should you give the enemy.
It could also depend on 'how' things were handled. If the system was used to mimic a non-military system, then it might be a legal requirement to drop/disable the system prior to engaging. However, if the system was used to make detection of a military system difficult by reducing the overall signature, then that is just a furtherance or refinement of existing LO and camoflage tech.
________________
Beware of Mr. Grumpy...
Todjaeger is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2016   #4
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todjaeger View Post
It could also depend on 'how' things were handled. If the system was used to mimic a non-military system, then it might be a legal requirement to drop/disable the system prior to engaging. However, if the system was used to make detection of a military system difficult by reducing the overall signature, then that is just a furtherance or refinement of existing LO and camoflage tech.
its interesting as various countries have had spoofer systems where their assets can present as being enemy assets and thus cause a temporal advantage.

I'd argue that cloaking is not the same as the core platform is still legitimate and "blue" - its just suppressing presence.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9th, 2016
standupforright
This message has been deleted by OPSSG. Reason: Rude reply that ignores forum rules
Old May 9th, 2016   #5
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by standupforright View Post
If my country, city or community is getting attacked, the last thing I would think of is the Geneva convention. As the saying goes, there are no rules in love and war. Geneva convention and NATO can go screw themselves.

Read the Forum Rules about posting behaviour before contributing again.

1st Warning
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 5th, 2016   #6
Defense Professional / Analyst
Sergeant
Blackshoe's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 274
Threads:
Quote:
This system can make a vehicle match the same heat pattern and effectively become invisible by picking up infrared readings of the background surroundings. Or the system can be used to turn a tank into something that looks like a civilian car on enemy radars, which again might not fit into the rules of war laid down by the Geneva Conventions.
As opposed to incorporating LO tech into ships reducing their RF signature to those the size of fishing boats, which is presumably quite legal.

BTBT

While I do get the lawyers' objections, in a major state-vs-state matchup like the objections seem to presume, I'm curious how long Geneva rules last in general.
Blackshoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:18 AM.