Much has been made of the advent of military robots, whether by air, land, or sea, and how they will create the perception that war will look increasingly like a video game.
For years now “flying robots” – also known as drones – have been crisscrossing the globe, hovering high above their targets, and emerging as a vital tool for military arsenals.
The technical capabilities of these machines is not in dispute. They can find, identify, and eliminate all kinds of targets. Yet because they reduce or minimize the impact on human life, drones have become an efficient, cost-effective, and politically acceptable tool. Almost no viable candidates running for president have condemned their use. Other countries are working on similar projects, thus accelerating the technical progress and racing to catch up to U.S. capabilities, resulting in a kind of global arms race.
Rapidly evolving capabilities of computer hardware and software are paving the way. Just take a look at how far the video game industry has come over the last decade, and one will have a pretty good idea of what our military could or would look like in the future. We have entered an age where the video games may be following military, not vice versa – where art imitates life, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde.
Changes in public perception and opinion on military engagements in general and loss of life, in particular, will favor and accelerate the development of military robots. That is, as we grow increasingly weary of war, we look to outsource the ugly aspects of conflict to autonomous machines – a way of wiping our collective consciences free of guilt and suffering.
The ability to engage in military conflicts minus the soldiers on the battlefields creates a kind of virtual reality. If war begins to look like a video game, then decisions to use force will be made flippantly. The debate will not consume up time on political talk-shows, or rally folks around the flag or drive protesters onto the streets. Instead, a kind of ho-hum complacency may settle in. Our eyes will glaze over at the sight of war on our televisions, much as they do for the teenage boy glued to his video game console. The violence on screen will be air-brushed out. Our peaceful sleeps will not be disturbed.
Arguably, we have no other choice but to acquire the military robot technology to maintain our leadership role and political status in the world. Such machines are vital for our global partnerships and to defend the principles of the free and democratic world.
I have no doubt that military robots will permanently change the face of conflicts. Likewise, the public perception of military disputes will enhance military robots capabilities – forming a self-licking ice cream cone.
But let’s be clear: Even though we may perceive of warfare as a (video) game, this doesn’t mean that countries and people on the receiving end of these potent military tools feel the same. By some estimates, over 90% of those killed in drone strikes are civilians.
In other words, I strongly believe that we not only need a comprehensive strategy on the use of these machines, but also a national conversation to discuss the ethics of their use. Otherwise, the “war of robots” will terribly fail.
“It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it.”
Robert E. Lee comment to James Longstreet, on seeing a Union charge repelled in the Battle of Fredericksburg (13 December 1862)
Well said and agreed. When it comes to war I do not want to be in a fair fight. Fair fights exact high cost on both sides. I am an advocate of drones on the battlefield. But they do worry me. Not in the Terminator apocalypse way but in their second and third order of effects. By removing ourselves from the tragedy of war it becomes less tragic to us. This makes the battle field no less tragic. War is a politician’s tool. By reducing the cost of this tool, less consideration is given to its use and care. No one cares about a cheap tool when it is broken or lost.
Ms. Buehler, you’re not trying to start a debate on drones, you’re trying to reopen the debate on the crossbow. In the middle ages, the crossbow was a terrifying disruptive weapon because it allowed a minimally trained operator to kill armored soldiers at a distance, and there was a movement to have it banned.
Despite said movement, most armies moved to incorporate crossbows–then muskets, rifles, machineguns, etc.–into their arsenals, because the honor and glory of dying for your country isn’t as productive as professionally making the other guy die for his. That cycle continues today, and there is no reason it will end, either.
The response was to expand the battlefield to put the archers at risk. The drone that is controlled from half a world away makes the operator at home a legitimate target. If the system is autonomous, responding to political decision, does the politician become fair game?
That question was settled by the end of the First World War, if not before. Of course the politician, as a national leader, is “fair game”. As is war industry and the population serving in it. The concept of warfare isolated to a battlefield and two opposing armies passed on long ago.
But to the point of Ms Buehler’s missive: James B. is exactly right. The crossbow (and for that matter, the longbow) was accused of “dehumanizing” warfare, because it made peasants capable of killing knights from a distance, without closing to fight it out. Warfare evolved. People killing each other from a distance hasn’t dehumanized warfare…just changed it.
Moreover, she is factually wrong about this debate not occurring. This debate has been in full swing for easily a decade. More than just debate, there’s DoD policy: DoDD 3000.09, published in November 2012, governs development of autonomous and semi-autonomous weapons.
Let’s get one fact straight: remotely-piloted aircraft, drones, etc, do not make decisions on who or when to attack. *People* make those decisions. *People* manipulate the controls to aim and release weapons. These strikes are no different than those conducted by manned aircraft, other than the aircrew isn’t in the airframe. And as a means of war, they’ve been shown to be no more destructive or produce more collateral damage than manned airstrikes, artillery, or for that matter, infantry raids.
The perception of these operations as a video game has also been discredited. If anything, because these same aircraft spend most of their time gathering information, the aircrews are more familiar with their targets than the average pilot. That stress is documented.
There is no excuse for anyone with access to a computer, let alone the resources of the USMA, to write such an ill-informed article as this one. There is a mass of published material, much of it within military journals, as well as from within think tanks and academia, covering this topic.
Col Jamie Sculerati, USAF (ret)
Supporting a wild claim of high civilian casualty numbers by citing a Huffington Post article that is essentially a mere re-posting of a spurrious ‘investigation’ by The Intercept is poor scholastic work, and is embarrassing to see coming out of an institution as reputable as USMA.
I think it is short sided to say this debate is not an issue. Despite the mountains of published works on the topic it is still a issue in our profession and society – hence the success of the article in Defense News, Military Times, and other venues. While writing comprehensively researched analysis is important, articulating a short and clear opinion on a topic that insights a large debate is a skill.
Certainly the topic’s worth more discussion, if for no other reason than it’s not going away soon. But opinion needs to acknowledge fact:
– Far from “the debate we are not having”, the technical, operational, and moral issues of autonomous weapons, and unmanned aircraft (whether autonomous or not…currently not) are recurring topics for articles of many types, particularly over the last 5-6 years. And as noted, there’s been enough discussion to generate DoD policy. So clearly, it’s on people’s minds.
– Perpetuating the “video game” stereotype without acknowledging the substantial amount of information indicating that far from causing greater disconnection from their acts, the long periods of observation before actually striking a target causes crews flying these missions some very specific stress. If you want a movie counterpoint to “The Terminator”, consider “The Truman Show”…if at the end, the audience had to kill Truman.
– Claiming high collateral damage without acknowledging a very wide disparity in how those estimates are generated, or comparison with other means of striking targets. I recommend a 7 June 2011 article in Foreign Policy (“Don’t Fear the Reaper”, Carpenter and Shakhouni) for a illustration of that problem.
Jamie
You neglect to acknowledge the fact that drones are being used as a very efficient means of facilitating extrajudicial killings in foreign nations that the United States is not even at war with. Also, said killings are often being conducted by the CIA rather than by the armed forces, in violation of the Geneva Convention governing lawful combat.
Way to generate thought and discussion Miss B! Morals, ethics, statistics, perception…all malleable under the visage of nation state security interest.
The measure of true power (and ability to project it) has always been rooted within the moral authority of the hand that wields it.
President Truman viewed his decision to utilize atomic energy for military purpose(s) in Japan no differently than he did fire bombing Germany.
Until drone employment becomes a more “surgical” weapon of choice, its employment will be held under a greater scrutiny then existing SF capabilities.
I agree this is a major issue that has been discussed in this last decade. The moral and ethical use of drone warfare will not be solved overnight. Studies have shown the enormous amounts of stress and PTSD these drone pilots have endured, and for that reason, I agree with earlier comments that discuss the inability for pilots to compare their jobs with a (video) game. However, the choice to conduct a drone strike does not rely on the pilot alone. I worry about the other components in the decision process who are not exposed to the stress provided by the time conducting surveillance and Intel. I worry that these are the people most likely to fall into this video game trap described by Ms. Buehler. This is where the disconnect takes place.
Studies have shown the enormous amounts of stress and PTSD these drone pilots have endured, and for that reason, I agree with earlier comments that discuss the inability for pilots to compare their jobs with a (video) game.
However, the choice to conduct a drone strike does not rely on the pilot alone. I worry about the other components in the decision process who are not exposed to the stress provided by the time conducting surveillance and Intel. I worry that these are the people most likely to fall into this video game trap described by Ms. Buehler. This is where the disconnect takes place.
I agree that drones do have the potential to limit the loss of friendly lives yet threaten to desensitize killing others. In this way, there is no real substitute to having soldiers on the ground, ensuring the proper use of these unmanned assets. However the advancing of technology is somewhat a necessity in the ever-evolving world of today.
I agree. It is not the bomb or the bullet that kills people. It is the intent that kills. Drones are just another form of weaponry that will save lives and money, but new doctrine should be established to accommodate such technological changes.
So is the issue one based on the desensitization of war itself? If so I can understand it. By pulling the soldier out of the fight and putting him behind a control stick, one needs to be concerned on whether that solider will feel any remorse once a missile is fired. If there is none, then innocent people may be lost. However, the value of a drone is far to great to simple disregard. Our military is going to have drones now and into the foreseeable future. The talk we should have is how to mitigate this desensitization and reduce the lose of innocent life.
I do not agree that drone pilots would view pulling the trigger as a video game. Taking a life is a serious decision no matter what medium battle takes place in. That being said, while taking a life is no different than if a person behind a rifle was there, I believe that the decision making process to employ drones should be very stringent.