[In the four-person game hearts, the hearts are worth one point, the queen of spades is worth 13 points, and all other card are zero points. However, if one person gets all the hearts and the queen of spades, the other three players get 26 points. This is called “shooting the moon.” The person with the lowest score wins. ]
Mark plays the two of clubs. Christine follows suit with an ace. Lauren and Peter toss in a ten and jack of clubs. Four clubs gone.
Christine leads and Peter takes a hand of four diamonds. Four diamonds gone.
Peter leads spades. Lauren takes the hand. Four spades gone.
Lauren leads clubs. Four clubs gone. Lauren leads clubs again and takes three clubs and the king of hearts. Lauren leads clubs again and takes two clubs and the nine and ten of hearts.
Peter wonders “why Lauren is taking so many hearts? Why would she want more points?”
Lauren leads and Christine takes diamonds. Peter relaxes, thinking “Lauren didn’t take any more hearts. She must have simply made a mistake.”
…
Lauren leads the queen of hearts, taking the jack, eight, and seven.
Christine leads spades. Lauren takes the hand with the queen.
Mark is startled as he realizes Lauren has the queen and nearly all the high hearts. “She’s trying to shoot the moon.” As he gazes at his hand, he realizes he has no more hearts. He needs to take a hand so that Lauren can’t take all of them.
Peter’s earlier suspicions are confirmed. From the look of alarm on Christine’s face, he knows that she understands what Lauren is trying to do. The ace of hearts has not been played, and if anyone but Lauren is holding it in their hand, it could save them.
Christine realizes that she could have taken a heart earlier in the game. This would have made her score worse, but it would have prevented Lauren from shooting the moon. Mark wishes he had saved his king of hearts for later in the game, as a way of disarming Lauren’s streak of hearts.
Alas, Lauren leads with the ace of hearts. The game is over.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The game of hearts is analogous to the idea that banning offensive autonomous weapons will keep us all safe. The hearts represent the cost of war; all players are trying to minimize the number of hearts accumulated throughout the game. Rules of war such as banning chemical warfare or autonomous weapons is the guarantee that all players are trying to take as few hearts as possible. A player shooting the moon is using a weapon that the other players did not agree upon, and causes more much more “mass destruction,” that is, 26 points for three people instead of 26 points distributed among all four players.
The only way to stop someone from shooting the moon is by having at least two players voluntarily take at least one heart. This must happen relatively early on in the game so that all of the high hearts have not been played. If there was a ban on offensive autonomous weapons, there would almost certainly be an entity that would not obey the ban. Even regardless of whether there is a ban, organizations will obtain them either way, because AI technology will continue to be developed for non-defense related applications. When such an entity “shoots the moon,” how can all of the nations without this technology defend themselves?
From a practical standpoint, having the technology for offensive weapons helps build effective defensive weapons. Those nations should have offensive autonomous weapon systems as their protective hearts. However, we must recognize that autonomous weapons make it easier to go to war, and there should be a limit to weapon proliferation. Having a limit on offensive weapons allows nations to call out others for violating human rights and it acknowledges the value of human life. Therefore, there should not be a total ban on offensive weapons, but a limit on offensive weapons.