Robots, War Machines & Bioethics

Drones firing missiles, bomb disposal tracked mini-vehicles going in harm’s way, unmanned ships to investigate smugglers/pirates/terrorists without risk, ship-based automated (radar guided) anti-missile/aircraft/shell machine gun spray, cruise missiles that identify their own targets and, eventually, robots on tracks, wheels or “legs” replacing actual soldiers. It’s the way of warfare, and probably as controversial as the first bomb that could be exploded that decimated combatant and civilian without discrimination.

Some argue that these smart machines or remotely guided weapons save the lives of the soldiers that would otherwise have to man them on the field of war. The November 27^th New York Times sparks the ethical debate with these two clearly divergent perspectives:

“‘One of the great arguments for armed robots is they can fire second,’ said Joseph W. Dyer, a former vice admiral and the chief operating officer of iRobot, which makes robots that clear explosives as well as the Roomba robot vacuum cleaner. When a robot looks around a battlefield, he said, the remote technician who is seeing through its eyes can take time to assess a scene without firing in haste at an innocent person…

“Because robots can stage attacks with little immediate risk to the people who operate them, opponents say that robot warriors lower the barriers to warfare, potentially making nations more trigger-happy and leading to a new technological arms race… ‘Wars will be started very easily and with minimal costs’ as automation increases, predicted Wendell Wallach, a scholar at the Yale Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics and chairman of its technology and ethics study group… Civilians will be at greater risk, people in Mr. Wallach’s camp argue, because of the challenges in distinguishing between fighters and innocent bystanders. That job is maddeningly difficult for human beings on the ground. It only becomes more difficult when a device is remotely operated.”

We can see the controversy that has arisen as we deploy remote-controlled drones (from right here in the United States) against targets in Western Pakistan (the Tribal Districts that have become safe haven to fleeing al Qaeda and Taliban fighters) or Afghanistan. These quiet aircraft, capable of remaining aloft for much longer than conventional military planes, deploy their night vision and then release their deadly “targeted” missile barrage, almost always with civilian casualties. We are most certainly unpopular with many of the families who lost loved ones who were not part of these wars.

Lest we think we are the only players with such equipment, Russian, Chinese, Israeli and even Iranian engineers are also at varying levels of technical achievement in these “remote combat” experiments and field use, and armies everywhere are using them. It does seem inevitable that wars will be fought this way, and we may see another Geneva Convention implemented restricting their use. Picture a sky dotted with circling drones protecting the deployment of tens of thousands of parachuting robotic soldiers… over your neighborhood. How does that image make you feel? We haven’t had an attempted invasion of our mainland in a very long time, but a country with insufficient physical soldiers or a severe limitation on being able to deliver them, might suddenly have the capability that only money can buy.

I’m Peter Dekom, and I am always amazed at the efforts we go through to make sure we can kill each other… efficiently.