REMOTE CONTROL: Remote control in high-tech warfare has begun to extend to robots involved in surveillance, troop supply and even the firing of powerful weapons.
Image: Joe Zeff Design; Mansour Ali Photography, Getty images (background)
In Brief
- The U.S. military once shunned robots as obstacles to traditional soldiering.
- “Unmanned” systems have proliferated in conflicts in the Middle East, either helping to negotiate the urban labyrinth of streets and alleyways or acting as scouts in remote villages.
- As robots do more on their own, they continue to raise a host of ethical and legal issues.
More In This Article
Back in the early 1970s, a handful of scientists, engineers, defense contractors and U.S. Air Force officers got together to form a professional group. They were essentially trying to solve the same problem: how to build machines that can operate on their own without human control and to figure out ways to convince both the public and a reluctant Pentagon brass that robots on the battlefield are a good idea. For decades they met once or twice a year, in relative obscurity, to talk over technical issues, exchange gossip and renew old friendships. This once cozy group, the Association for Unmanned Systems International, now encompasses more than 1,500 member companies and organizations from 55 countries. The growth happened so fast, in fact, that it found itself in something of an identity crisis. At one of its meetings in San Diego, it even hired a “master storyteller” to help the group pull together the narrative of the amazing changes in robotic technology. As one attendee summed up, “Where have we come from? Where are we? And where should we—and where do we want to—go?”
What prompted the group’s soul-searching is one of the most profound changes in modern warfare since the advent of gunpowder or the airplane: an astonishingly rapid rise in the use of robots on the battlefield. Not a single robot accompanied the U.S. advance from Kuwait toward Baghdad in 2003. Since then, 7,000 “unmanned” aircraft and another 12,000 ground vehicles have entered the U.S. military inventory, entrusted with missions that range from seeking out snipers to bombing the hideouts of al-Qaeda higher-ups in Pakistan. The world’s most powerful fighting forces, which once eschewed robots as unbecoming to their warrior culture, have now embraced a war of the machines as a means of combating an irregular enemy that triggers remote explosions with cell phones and then blends back into the crowd. These robotic systems are not only having a big effect on how this new type of warfare is fought, but they also have initiated a set of contentious arguments about the implications of using ever more autonomous and intelligent machines in battle. Moving soldiers out of harm’s way may save lives, but the growing use of robots also raises deep political, legal and ethical questions about the fundamental nature of warfare and whether these technologies could inadvertently make wars easier to start.
This article was originally published with the title War of the Machines.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
20 Comments
Add CommentIt's nearly twenty years since I approached some British university aerospace departments with ideas about enclosing solar panels which could rotate about two axis within the transparent canopy of a robotic airship. I had further envisaged that the lower surface could have been covered with fractal pattern tiles which combined to produce a phased array antenna or radar. I should have gone to Lockheed Martin. The idea was sparked by hearing about a solar powered plane hich operated on solar panels covering the top surface of the wing. As a glider pilot I realised that unless you were in the tropics close to noon , there was no flight pattern you could fly that would maintain peak output from the solar panels. A "lighter than air" craft with arrays capable of rotating about two axis and thus tracking the sun would be a more likely to stay up for long periods and be cheaper than a satelitte. The limiting factor heading us towards unmanned aircraft is the g forces that a pilot can sustain. Not having to place a cockpit, canopy and ejector mechanism in an aircraft frees up the designer to produce something truly agile. The biggest problem is getting and maintaining secure two way communications and is likely to be met by laser technology. Crucial decisions taken by whoever commands such weapons will be limited by human reaction speeds, so the communication system has to be faster than that
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the article could have used a good edit.
I think the article also could have used a broader point of view... less technocratic. I agree that the rules of war are shifting due to these technologies... but those shifts are not entirely driven by them.
For instance, under the old rules, it was clear who was a civilian and who was a combatant: combatants wear uniforms. This rule was designed to protect civilians on all sides and violating it (e.g., by spying in civilian clothes or, worse, by donning your enemy's uniform) is a serious offense.
Today's wars often do not have such a designation. In Gaza, is someone a militant or a civilian if he is carrying an AK-47? How about in Dallas? Or Idaho? In Afghanistan, is someone a warlord over irregulars or a government-aligned militia? You can't tell, since none of these people wear a uniform and therefore the whole concept of "collateral civilian casualties" comes into question. This has nothing to do with robotics.
The big point here is the concept that Unmanned <> Robotic. Remote controlled <> Robotic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA few have VERY simple autonomous and quasi autonomous modes (read auto pilot).
A RC Car, plane, or tank with a camera is still RC Car, plane, or tank . (PackBot or a TALON )
Some drones can fly and scan, even land on there own . . this is much better but not as big a deal as some think and has been around for some time, flying is much easier then walking :)
Now some new things are coming down the line that may be rightly coined "robot" but not quite yet . .
now the points the author makes on the robots becoming more then a vehicle with out a human pilot is right on. I expect they will change the way "human" combat is today
The conduct of war has had many changes throughout the long history of modern man, and the techniques and technologies of conducting wars have like-wise changed. Use of robotics in the field of battle is an eventual progress, coming on the heals of the computer age that was ushered into the scene in the 1990's, so to is a new technological era coming into focus in the early 21st century. We want our machines to be more ethical than we are, but how ethical are we if we spend sleepless hours in frightful nightmares dreaming that our robots are going to gain the upper hand and make themselves the te species? Will military bots have a My Lai massacre? Will there be a Major General Bot by the name Genghis Khan, who will command the 121st Robotic Division? Even in today's modern warfare before the use of bots, there has been civilian and friendly fire causalities. We are at a crossroads in the level of technological growth that is occurring in society, but as in all technological leaps that is at first one sided; the other side eventually catches up and someone develops a cheaper way of doing the same thing and the battle field becomes level and the escalation rise to a new level of pain and suffering. Will we one day have a war that will totally be fought robot to robot?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey say that war is only good for the undertaker.
"Give me your clothes, NOW!" Enter the "Terminators". Actually, as long as real breathing and bleeding people are controlling these things, I'm all for it in the short term. I worry about the autonomous bots. They get lost, confused, hungry, then they get cranky, and before long there is lots of running and screaming and dying... All because the human neuron was removed from the decision process. Then again, is that so different than before robots?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe longest and pointiest spear usually wins. Bots give the user just that. But as kristi276 points out, this a game of leapfrog with every frog leaping as hard as they can to be in front. The endgame is that we destroy our planet. Nobody wins, not even the undertaker.
So, we have computers that can play a mean game of chess, or texas hold'em, or go-fish, or whatever; but can we make a computer that would prevent war by demonstrating that no one wins and everyone loses?
Unfortunately, I fear we have begun "The Matrix, volume 1".
METAL GEAR LIVES!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo paraphrase star trek, war needs to be horrible so that we don't wage it on a whim. When waging war looks like a video game then the population will be eager to play. I am all for saving the grunt but fear that more civilians will die if war becomes a spectator sport.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAm I missing something? If my robots faced a bunch of tougher robots on the battlefield, my logical strategy would be to go after the human controller of the enemy robots. Tracking down and killing the operator in enemy territory sounds a lot more efficient than trying to deal with all those big robot things. Are we inviting the enemy to do the same back here on our domestic shores? Think about it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe use of robots will greatly reduce the number of human casualties, possibly to zero. Since robots do not have a survival instinct, they do not have to shoot at anything that moves as human soldiers do. Robots can afford to wait to make a positive identification. Since shooting a robot is pointless, you can't kill something that isn't alive, the robot can eventually take any enemy human soldier prisoner. Taking prisoners is much better than killing them. We won the Iraq war by taking prisoners. Dead enemy soldiers don't get counted the same way prisoners do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKilling the operator doesn't work if the operator isn't locally present on the battlefield. Our operators, of aircraft, are home in the US, not near the battlefield. Our operators of land robots will be in armored vehicles or back home soon.
why using robots for military uses...why cant we create high developed robots for domestic.household,and helpful uses rather than killing other people and destroying the world...our brain is the most important yet dangerous gift from god ,because we are using this marvelous utility for committing hazards and starting wars which will lead to another war and the story never end!!!!!!haven''t you realized till now that wars are similar to earthquakes;when both occur "after shocks"happen...the point i'm trying to elaborate here is that its high time for man to forget that he must fight his brother in humanity and start repairing this planet using through advantageous technology and not the opposite.if we gonna use robots to fight the enemy instead of us its a worse catastrophe than atomic bombs,because a robot cannot distinguish between a innocent civilian and a terrorist..a robot soldier has no heart but a human soldier could have mercy on his enemy...the message here is :STOP WAR ,DON'T EVOLUTE IT ,DON'T IMPROVE IT ,JUST TERMINATE IT .....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTerminator, Matrix = fun fiction. But nothing to do with reality. . look at these films, about as contrived as possible to make there "cautionary "story.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople are assuming a AI . . as of now, we do not know if it is possible to make a AI of ANY level let alone a greater then human one practical in a mobile form.
People are seem to think AI can just happen . . . classic Sci-fi but in reality if you do not build the capability it will not happen . . Build a AI THEN you may want to be careful.
With no AI, Robots are . . simple minded at best and NEED humans to make high level decisions. Yes they can make quick reactions (offense and defense) but of a ANT like instinct level. Yes one can go wacky but it would be isolated and incapable of "thinking" - just able to react. This is a important distinction.
People are assuming a Robot can go a muck any worse then a crazy human. It is the reaction speed and possible strength that will be impressive . . not "brains" or deviousness of a human. Worry more about a crazy human with control of bots then the bots themselves.
People are assuming a Robot is some sort of life form . . it is not . . it requires allot maintenance just to funtion, it requires energy supplied to it, and it can't reproduce. A robot requires a entire tech & industrial base just to function. (sure, it MAY be possable for a bot eventually do all of the above on it's own . . but at this time that is as close as faster then light travel . . rather unlikely but maybe possible - and even if so, not anytime soon. so worrying about it now is rather crazy)
Only the dead have seen the end of war . . (and resources and gods have most to do with it)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi tearog - a pretty good summation of the scene. It comes as a natural progression in the development of weapons. A throwing stick, spear, arrow, then firearm projectile all allowed the user to inflict lethal force at increaseing distances.So called "smart" weapons which remove the individual who is in command even further from the business end of the weapon effective range is only limited by the communication lag imposed by distance. However the device does not require to be intelligent as we would normally consider it to follow a decision tree commanded by it's operator and using the sensors available to it. Maintaining a safe course away from obstacles need not require detailed command from the operator if it has an adequate menu of solutions available in it's on board software. The worry is that if commanded that all personel in it's vicinity are hostile it might not have the means of verifying this, and attack friend and foe alike.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi want to take part in SciAm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Maintaining a safe course away from obstacles need not require detailed command from the operator if it has an adequate menu of solutions available in it's on board software. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExactly what I have been building . . on one level not too hard (basic nav), on another very (just about everything else) . . These robots will no be independently identifying people any time soon.
And on the impersonal aspect of war . . . so war was better when a army of humans attack a town by burning the houses, killing all males (by hacking and burning), and raping/enslaving any surviving females (if so inclined) vs shelling from a near by hill, or bombing from a plane, or missile strike from a ship? . . brutality up close and personal and brutality at a distance is still brutality. How you conduct a war is everything.
A robot is just another tool, as dangerous and save as people want them.
This will sound backwards - but we have millions of people out of work under-employed, un-employed and under-educated - is it really easier and cheaper to create robots than it is to train humans to do needed skills? Some things, yes but many things I would suggest no. Especially if you calculate what those poor people require as a resource to live while either being unproductive, under-productive or destructive. Until we start controlling the earths population we better consider this. Oh by the way, there will always be war, I'm cool with robots killing each other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis will sound backwards - but we have millions of people out of work under-employed, un-employed and under-educated - not to mention the millions starving. Is it really easier and cheaper to create robots than it is to train humans to do needed skills? Some things, yes but many things I would suggest no. Especially if you calculate what those poor people require as a resource to live while either being unproductive, under-productive or destructive. Until we start controlling the earths population we better consider this. Oh by the way, there will always be war, I'm cool with robots killing each other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerfect. Just what we need...more annonymous ways to committ State sanctioned murder.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps robots will be better at finding weapons of mass destruction?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey question the morality of our using remote-controlled aircraft to carry out attacks, resulting in civilian casualties. What about those who have recruited mentally-ill people, children and others who could not think properly, strapped suicide-vests on them, sent them a crowded marketplace and set them off by remote-control?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey talk about totally autonomous weapons--we already have them--they are called cruise-missiles. These are programmed to navigate to their target and detonate autonomously once launched.