More In This Article
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
When U.S. forces invaded Iraq in 2003, they fought a traditional war of human on human. Since then, robots have joined the fight. Both there and in Afghanistan, thousands of “unmanned” systems dismantle roadside IEDs, take that first peek around the corner at a sniper’s lair and launch missiles at Taliban hideouts. Robots are pouring onto battlefields as if a new species of mechanotronic alien had just landed on our planet.
It is not the first time that the technology of warfare has advanced more rapidly than the body of international law that seeks to restrain its use. During World War I, cannons shot chemical weapons at and airplanes dropped bombs on unsuspecting cities. Only later did nations reach a verdict on whether it was acceptable to target a munitions factory next to a primary school.
Something similar is happening today with potentially even more profound and disturbing consequences. As Brookings Institution analyst P. W. Singer describes in “War of the Machines,” the rise of robots leads to the frightening prospect of making obsolete the rule book by which nations go to war. Armed conflict between nation states is brutal, but at least it proceeds according to a set of rules grounded both in international law and in the demands of military discipline. It is not true that anything goes in the heat of battle. “Such rules are certainly not always followed, but their very existence is what separates killing in war from murder and what distinguishes soldiers from criminals,” writes Singer in Wired for War, his recent popular book on the military robotic revolution.
Those rules are stretched to their breaking point when robots go to war. The legal and ethical questions abound. Who is accountable when a Predator’s missile hits the wrong target? Missiles from errant drones have already killed as many as 1,000 civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Does responsibility reside with a field commander in the Middle East where spotters identified the “target of interest”? Or should blame be apportioned to the “remote pilot” stationed at a military base near Las Vegas who launched the strike from 7,000 miles away? And what about a software engineer who might have committed a programming error that caused a misfire?
Considering rules of engagement for war-at-a-distance raises a surreal set of questions. Does the remote operator in Nevada remain a legal combatant—in other words, a legitimate enemy target—on the trip after work to Walmart or to a daughter’s soccer match? Would an increasingly sketchy line between warrior and civilian invite attacks on U.S. soil against homes and schools?
Remote-controlled robots are here to stay, and rules can be worked out to regulate their use. But the more serious threat comes from semiautonomous machines over which humans retain nothing more than last-ditch veto power. These systems are only a software upgrade away from fully self-sufficient operation. The prospect of androids that hunt down and kill on their own accord (shades of Terminator) should give us all pause. An automatic pilot that makes its own calls about whom to shoot violates the “human” part of international humanitarian law, the one that recognizes that some weapons are so abhorrent that they just should be eliminated.
Some might call a ban on autonomous robots naive or complain that it would tie the hands of soldiers faced with irregular warfare. But although robots have clear tactical advantages, they carry a heavy strategic price. The laws of war are an act not of charity but of self-interest; the U.S. would be weakened, not strengthened, if chemical and biological weapons were widespread, and the same is true of robots. They are a cheap way to offset conventional military strength, and other nations and groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon are already deploying them. The U.S. may not always be the leader in this technology and would be well advised to negotiate restrictions on their use from a position of strength. We can never put the genie back into the bottle, but putting a hold on further development of this technology could limit the damage.
See what we're tweeting about
17 Comments
Add CommentThe US refuses to join the War Crimes Tribunal, and has a questionable track record on the Geneva Conventions, such as chemical warfare. Add to that, that most Americans think negotiations are a sign of weakness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo why on Earth would anyone think the US will limit its use of robotic warfare, when 30 schoolchildren caught by a Predator causes less outcry than a single soldier's death? Besides which, as long as our enemies use human shields, the public at large will condone ruthlessness. Just look at the G20 in Canada. The number of Canadians who support illegal arrests of 900 peaceful protesters, just to get at the 50 or 100 (at most) who might, possibly, just by chance, be among those 900, is staggering.
There is no sense of proportion, and robotics will certainly make it worse. But suggesting that the technology should be put on hold is not only useless, it's self-defeating. The most widely use hawk argument is, "If you don't have a better idea, then this must be the right one". If your idea is to stop developing the technology, don't be surprised that it keeps on being used.
The simple fact is that nations only negotiate when they rightfully fear the consequences, such as nuclear armageddon. The US does not fear robotics, because any other country that can develop remote warfare is not a country the US would have warred with anyways. (Barring a third world war).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI for one welcome our new robot overlords.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProbably the main danger at this time is for a drone operator to think of killing as a video game. This is probably happening on some level with remote control pilots.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAsimov's 3 Laws of Robotics might come to pass after all. But not with THIS congress.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAsimov wrote the robot novels long ago and I got to read them for doing well in my catechism classes in the Presbyterian church (my Minister was a forward thinking human). My first true encounter with our capabilities and the constraints placed on military personnel engaged in weapons of mass destruction came in the Nuclear Navy. I am sure these constraints have been honed in the intervening years. We, it would seem, have the proof that radicals of any group are not taught these constraints. I.E. Waco, World Trade Center, Tamil, (Choose the group}: I was asked one day "If it becomes apparent to you that the US has been attacked will you launch your missles?" I had to take pause to consider the implications and how I could verify who had done the deed,after assuring myself they would be the ones bragging I replied in the affirmative. After all the Golden Rule appears in all religions and as I have gone thru life it obvious you reap what you sow. As an historical aside, in the early 60's using the Gulf Stream as a wave guide and the then existing sonar we could tell what ships were entering New York Harbor and who the Capt. and crew were.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"We can never put the genie back into the bottle, but putting a hold on further development of this technology could limit the damage."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPersonally l think it's dangerously naive to think that humans will limit the damage we can cause one another. And yes l would agree with MCMalkemus that some kid/"soldier"(??) will think he's only playing some war game.
'We' can limit our technological developments if we like, but 'others' will not. While we have a technological advantage, it is only temporary.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps we should develop autonomous control mechanisms to passively infiltrate all potential devices.
Aside from autonomous systems, it's an extension of an already existing trend, is it not? OK, I'm not an expert on this, but...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKill someone with a knife and, potential psychological side-stepping aside, you are very aware that you've killed another human being. Launch an arrow or fire a gun into the enemy ranks and it becomes a little less clear. Fire artillery and it's still less clear. As technology advances, the victor is always who can kill at a greater distance. Also, with greater distance comes the ability to tell oneself that the target was not quite as human as yourself.
Different people will react in different ways, but that's always been the case.
This really isn't a new topic; anyone remember "The Doomsday Machine" episode of Star Trek?
the article headline is very miss leading....there is not an ai doing the bombing....they are all controlled by a human...for better or worse....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChris G - I think the classic movie, "Dr. Strangelove. or how I... and learned to love the Bomb" (whatever), in which the Russians had a device that would destroy the world at the first hint of nuclear war.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow that's an idea, a device to selectively destroy humanity if we fail to learn how to live economically within the Earth's resource constraints, allowing life on Earth another chance... Would that be terrorism?
The Cylons were created by Man. They evolved. They rebeled. And they have a plan...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the inevitability of future robotic battlefields, can I suggest the inclusion of more Nr 6-like robots in the world's armies? If we are to be hunted by our robotic creations, it would definitely add some finesse and style...
?e??ĺ(ٌ
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHuman progress, technological advancement will make up an advanced human. Make our lives better! Fully supports the robot R & D!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd yet we have people who instead of thinking in terms of peace and harmony, they talk about war and Robotics in the field of war. I would love it if it only destroys humans. I dont see them(humans) become any better. They think of other people like they see human like creatures on video games. And even there, they enjoy killing others. Not even in a war, but killing civilians for fun, running over them and enjoying the pain we inflict over them. After all its a game. But that's the way a person controlling Robot and killing people gonna behave.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHumans are the most inhumane being in the world.
Funny little people couldn't stop the oil leak or using Robots to help in similar situations. Yet they talk about using it in war.
This technology is simply an extension of current psychopathic policies and practice. Just as with the BP scenario, it's just a matter of time before nanotechnology and next-gen autonomous killing machines merge in an "unforeseen circumstance" and wreak havoc, the result of which will be near catastrophic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd for what..?
I am an avid robot builder and for years I have watched as robots are being badly used. It makes me sad ,so very sad when these creations of our genius are used for destruction.I firmly believe that robots will help mankind survive and thrive. However we have to change direction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTake Care