Robots Military

[Lenora Rademacher]

Broadlydefined, military robots date back to World War II and the Cold War in the form of the German Goliath tracked mines and the Soviet teletanks. The introduction of the MQ-1 Predator drone was when "CIA officers began to see the first practical returns on their decade-old fantasy of using aerial robots to collect intelligence".[1]

The use of robots in warfare, although traditionally a topic for science fiction, is being researched as a possible future means of fighting wars. Already several military robots have been developed by various armies. Some believe the future of modern warfare will be fought by automated weapons systems.[2] The U.S. military is investing heavily in the RQ-1 Predator, which can be armed with air-to-ground missiles and remotely operated from a command center in reconnaissance roles. DARPA has hosted competitions in 2004 & 2005 to involve private companies and universities to develop unmanned ground vehicles to navigate through rough terrain in the Mojave Desert for a final prize of 2 million.[3]

Artillery has seen promising research with an experimental weapons system named "Dragon Fire II" which automates loading and ballistics calculations required for accurate predicted fire, providing a 12-second response time to fire support requests. However, military weapons are prevented from being fully autonomous; they require human input at certain intervention points to ensure that targets are not within restricted fire areas as defined by Geneva Conventions for the laws of war.

There have been some developments towards developing autonomous fighter jets and bombers.[4] The use of autonomous fighters and bombers to destroy enemy targets is especially promising because of the lack of training required for robotic pilots, autonomous planes are capable of performing maneuvers which could not otherwise be done with human pilots (due to high amount of G-force), plane designs do not require a life support system, and a loss of a plane does not mean a loss of a pilot. However, the largest drawback to robotics is their inability to accommodate for non-standard conditions. Advances in artificial intelligence in the near future may help to rectify this.

Autonomous robotics would save and preserve soldiers' lives by removing serving soldiers, who might otherwise be killed, from the battlefield. Lt. Gen. Richard Lynch of the United States Army Installation Management Command and assistant Army chief of staff for installation stated at a 2011 conference:

Machines don't get tired. They don't close their eyes. They don't hide under trees when it rains and they don't talk to their friends ... A human's attention to detail on guard duty drops dramatically in the first 30 minutes ... Machines know no fear.

Increasing attention is also paid to how to make the robots more autonomous, with a view of eventually allowing them to operate on their own for extended periods of time, possibly behind enemy lines. For such functions, systems like the Energetically Autonomous Tactical Robot are being tried, which is intended to gain its own energy by foraging for plant matter. The majority of military robots are tele-operated and not equipped with weapons; they are used for reconnaissance, surveillance, sniper detection, neutralizing explosive devices, etc. Current robots that are equipped with weapons are tele-operated so they are not capable of taking lives autonomously.[19] Advantages regarding the lack of emotion and passion in robotic combat is also taken into consideration as a beneficial factor in significantly reducing instances of unethical behavior in wartime. Autonomous machines are created not to be "truly 'ethical' robots", yet ones that comply with the laws of war (LOW) and rules of engagement (ROE).[20] Hence the fatigue, stress, emotion, adrenaline, etc. that affect a human soldier's rash decisions are removed; there will be no effect on the battlefield caused by the decisions made by the individual.

Human rights groups and NGOs such as Human Rights Watch and the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots have started urging governments and the United Nations to issue policy to outlaw the development of so-called "lethal autonomous weapons systems" (LAWS).[21] The United Kingdom opposed such campaigns, with the Foreign Office declaring that "international humanitarian law already provides sufficient regulation for this area".[22]

In July 2015, over 1,000 experts in artificial intelligence signed a letter calling for a ban on autonomous weapons. The letter was presented in Buenos Aires at the 24th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-15) and was co-signed by Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, Steve Wozniak, Noam Chomsky, Skype co-founder Jaan Tallinn and Google DeepMind co-founder Demis Hassabis, among others.[23][24]

American soldiers have been known to name the robots that serve alongside them. These names are often in honor of human friends, family, celebrities, pets, or are eponymic.[25] The 'gender' assigned to the robot may be related to the marital status of its operator.[25]

Some affixed fictitious medals to battle-hardened robots, and even held funerals for destroyed robots.[25] An interview of 23 explosive ordnance detection members shows that while they feel it is better to lose a robot than a human, they also felt anger and a sense of loss if they were destroyed.[25] A survey of 746 people in the military showed that 80% either 'liked' or 'loved' their military robots, with more affection being shown towards ground rather than aerial robots.[25] Surviving dangerous combat situations together increased the level of bonding between soldier and robot, and current and future advances in artificial intelligence may further intensify the bond with the military robots.[25]

The world is evolving and expanding exponentially, with corporations, small businesses, and even individuals of all lifestyles fully integrating technology, specifically machines, and robots into their lives to make daily activities easier.

Machines can perform a variety of simple to complex operations. They range from inexpensive household items like coffeepots that brew individual cups of coffee when and how you want them to multimillion-dollar robotic systems programmed to defend our nation.

In robotics, innovation faces opposition despite its advantages, especially when it comes to military applications. Robots are cheaper to make than training and caring for living, breathing human Soldiers. Robot programming allows for specific guiding rules that allow for split-second decisions, minimizing errors caused by deficient human skills and reducing the potential for collateral damage.

If the U.S. Army used robotic Soldiers, it would also significantly increase military capabilities, further establishing our place as a world superpower by keeping us ahead of potential competition with near-peer adversaries.

According to Penn State ethicist Alan Wagner, two main ideas indicate that using robots is unethical. The first is that using robots will reduce the risks so much that future wars will increase (Wagner, A., 2017). Fatalities make war real and apply political pressure on governments as a deterrence. The second argument targets robots themselves and their inability to differentiate between combatants and noncombatants, which means there is a potential for higher civilian casualties (2017).

While human casualties create governmental pressure and indiscriminate deaths are possible, the opposite is also true. Using robots logically removes human Soldiers from the battlefield, automatically reducing casualties. Also, robots would adhere to doctrine without emotional interference (Wagner, A., 2017).

The Army is at a crossroads. Lawmakers, government officials, and society must decide how robots are employed in the Army. They can and will play a major role in the future of warfare; it is just a matter of when.

When considering robots and their effect on the Army, three specific areas exist. They include the cost of Soldiers versus robots, recruiting issues, and improving current capabilities in drones and other robotic systems.

Ultimately, while money is important, it cannot be the deciding factor when it comes to the impact of Soldiers versus robots. Using robots means fewer Soldier casualties and will ultimately cost less in the end.

By using robots, the need for human Soldiers would be lessened as would the urgent need for military services to continue to press a shrinking population of eligible Americans. Using robots in the U.S. Army would reduce the cost of recruiting, both from the monetary and behavioral health impacts.

While military services struggle to make their recruiting mission, robots are already in use. Currently, we use robots in EOD, Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), and missile system guidance (Patriot), just to name a few.

While these systems help, they do not influence the Army enough to show robots will eventually reduce the number of Soldiers it requires. Leadership changes and budget limitations remain obstacles to improvement, but we will not be prepared to compete with the rest of the world if we do not increase our efforts.

Leadership ideologies and money issues inhibit using robots, but the main reasons we are reluctant to increase efforts come from fear of losing humanity. What if a robot army becomes a weapon of mass destruction (WMD)? Who takes responsibility when robots make mistakes? These are valid questions and require real answers, but they should not and cannot be the reason for zero progress.

To manage this issue, we must create global study groups with NATO and our allies to create rules governing robotics in the military. Until we can agree on these rules, we cannot progress. Nations that do not adhere to the rules will advance without our support.

When the time comes for the Army to use robots, the U.S. must set an example for their ethical use by showing how recruiting issues become less significant with risk reduction. The results could mean more white-collar jobs created for the Army.

3a8082e126