Another view: time to consider the human dimension of using robots in warfare

By John Keller

Posted by John Keller

Last month I posted a blog item headlined Autonomous arms race: gentlemen, start your robots , in which I took a university professor in Sheffield, England , named Noel Sharkey to task for views on military robotic technology he presented in a keynote address to the Royal United Services Institute.

The gist was I believe robots are, and will be, valuable tools for military planners. Professor Sharkey, on the other hand, says not so fast; we need to take a closer look at the human issues of deploying military robotic technology before we go much farther down this road.

This morning I received a long and very thoughtful response from Professor Sharkey to my blog item. We still disagree on a variety of issues, but that's beside the point of today's blog. Today I'd simply like to share Professor Sharkey's thoughts with you, and let his points speak for themselves.

You make some valid points here John but I think that you have slanted my line of reasoning a little in the wrong direction. I will make my main case again here.

I do not have a problem with "a man in the loop" robots. It is dumb autonomous robots that I am concerned about. I am not politically active and I am not anti military. Laying my cards face up on the table, my position is simply that it is the duty and moral responsibility of all citizens to protect innocent people everywhere, regardless of creed, race, or nationality. All innocents have a right to protection.

There are many breaches of this right that fall outside of my remit. I concern myself solely with new weapons that are being constructed using research from my own field of enquiry.

My concerns arise from my knowledge of the limitations of artificial intelligence and robotics. I am clearly not calling for a ban on all robots as I have worked in the field for nearly 30 years.

I don't blame you for not believing me about the use of fully autonomous battle robots. I found it hard to believe myself until I read the plans and talked to military officers about them. Just Google search for military roadmaps to help you get up to speed on this issue. Read the roadmaps for Air Force, Army, and Navy published in 2005 or the December, 2007 Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032 (large .pdf) and you might begin to see my concerns.

In a book entitled Autonomous Vehicles in Support of Naval Operations published by The National Academies Press in 2005, a Naval committee wrote that, "The Navy and Marine Corps should aggressively exploit the considerable warfighting benefits offered by autonomous vehicles (AVs) by acquiring operational experience with current systems and using lessons learned from that experience to develop future AV technologies, operational requirements, and systems concepts."

The signs are there that such plans are falling into place. On the ground, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in Arlington, Va., ran a successful Grand Robotics challenge for four years in an autonomous vehicle race across the Mojave Desert. In 2007 it changed to an urban challenge where autonomous vehicles navigated around a mock city environment. You don't have to be too clever to see where this is going. In February this year DARPA showed off their "Unmanned Ground Combat Vehicle and Perceptor Integration System" otherwise knows as the Crusher. This a 6.5 ton robot truck, nine feet wide with no room for passengers or a steering wheel, which travels at 26 miles per hour. Stephen Welby, director of DARPA Tactical Technology office said, "This vehicle can go into places where, if you were following in a Humvee, you'd come out with spinal injuries," Carnegie Mellon University Robotics Institute is reported to have received $35 million over four years to deliver this project. Admittedly it is a just a demonstration project at present.

Last month BAE Systems tested software for a squadron of planes that could select their own targets and decide among themselves which target each should acquire. Again a demonstrations system but the signs are there.

There are a number of good military reasons for such a move. Teleoperated systems are expensive to manufacture and require many support personnel to run them. One of the main goals of the Future Combat Systems project is to use robots as a force multiplier so that one soldier on the battlefield can be a nexus for initiating a large-scale robot attack from the ground and from the air.

Clearly, one soldier cannot operate several robots alone. Autonomous systems have the advantage of being able to make decisions in nanoseconds while humans need a minimum of hundreds of milliseconds.

FCS spending is going to be in the order of $230 billion, with spending on unmanned systems expected to exceed $24 billion ($4 billion up to 2010).

The downside is that autonomous robots that are allowed to make decisions about whom to kill falls foul of the fundamental ethical precepts of a just war under jus in bello as enshrined in the Geneva and Hague conventions and the various protocols set up to protect innocent civilians, wounded soldiers, the sick, the mentally ill, and captives.

There is no way for a robot or artificial intelligence system to determine the difference between a combatant and an innocent civilian. There are no visual or sensing systems up to that challenge. The Laws of War provide no clear definition of a civilian that can be used by a machine. The 1944 Geneva Convention requires the use of common sense while the 1977 Protocol 1 (Article 50) essentially defines a civilian in the negative sense as someone who is not a combatant. Even if there were a clear definition, and even if sensing were possible, human judgment is required to identify the infinite number of circumstances where lethal force is inappropriate. Just think of a child forced to carry an empty rifle.

The Laws of War also require that lethal force be proportionate to military advantage. Again, there is neither sensing capability that would allow a robot such a determination, nor is there any known metric to objectively measure needless, superfluous, or disproportionate suffering. This requires human judgment. Yes, humans do make errors and can behave unethically, but they can be held accountable. Who is to be held responsible for the lethal mishaps of a robot? Certainly not the machine itself. There is a long causal chain associated with robots: the manufacturer, the programmer, the designer, the Department of Defense, the generals or admirals in charge of the operation, and the operator.

This is where your analogy with gun control breaks down. If someone kills an innocent with a gun, the shooter is responsible for the crime. The gun does not decide whom to kill. If criminals decided to put guns on robots that wandered around shooting innocent people, do you thing that the good citizens should also put guns on robots to go around shooting innocent people? It does not make sense.

The military forces in the civilized world do not want to kill civilians. There are strong legal procedures in the United States and JAG [the military's Judge Advocate General] has to validate all new weapons. My worry is that there will be a gradual sleep walk into the use of autonomous weapons like the ones that I mentioned. I want us to step back and make the policies rather than let the policies make themselves.

I take you point (and greater expertise than mine) about the slowness of politics and the UN. But we must try. There are no current international guidelines or even discussions about the uses of autonomous robots in warfare. These are needed urgently. The present machines could be little more than heavily armed mobile mines and we have already seen the damage that land mines have caused to children at play. Imagine the potential devastation of heavily armed robots in a deep mission out of radio communication. The only humane recourse of action is to severely restrict or ban the deployment of these new weapons until it can be demonstrated that they can pass an "innocents discrimination test" in real life circumstances.

I am pleased that you have allowed this opportunity to debate the issues and put my viewpoint forward.

best wishes,
Noel

Easily post a comment below using your Linkedin, Twitter, Google or Facebook account.

Previous Blog Posts

Capital Hill budget deal could restore tens of billions of dollars to the Pentagon

December 17, 2013

Hacker drone story a cautionary tale about the need for unmanned vehicle data security

December 10, 2013

Lack of money for systems upgrades threatens to maintain wind-farm radar dead spots

December 3, 2013

Engineering support contracts indicate the Pentagon is sinking into the Mothball Strategy

November 26, 2013

The revenge of COTS: an ageing commercial technology base complicates military supply chain

November 19, 2013

Navy's newest destroyers evolve to fill traditional battleship roles

November 12, 2013

International suspicions of U.S. encryption technology putting defense companies in a bind

November 5, 2013

Defense industry left guessing as Army struggles forward with an unclear mission

October 29, 2013

These are tough times for the combat vehicle and vetronics industries

October 22, 2013

Is the government shutdown a harbinger of more ominous things to come?

October 15, 2013

Government shutdown reduces military contracting, increasing pressure on U.S. defense industry

October 7, 2013

Potential good news: has U.S. defense spending finally bottomed-out?

October 1, 2013

Is robotics revolution the first glimpse of a fundamental change in human evolution?

September 24, 2013

Obsolescent parts: are we enhancing military readiness or creating a hollow force?

September 17, 2013

For the high-tech warfighter, the future of electronics-laden uniforms is here

September 10, 2013

New generation of embedded computing thermal management in development at GE

September 3, 2013

Trading bus stops for credit cards: how far embedded computing has come in three decades

August 27, 2013

Unmanned vehicle industry stands at the doorstep of a fundamental transformation

August 20, 2013

AUVSI 2013, one of the biggest unmanned vehicles shows in the world, opens this week in Washington

August 13, 2013

The Washington Post, under Jeff Bezos, could lead the way for media in the 21st Century

August 6, 2013

Are costs and vulnerabilities making military leaders nervous about satellite communications?

July 30, 2013

Unmanned aircraft carrier that travels beneath the waves may be in the Navy's future

July 23, 2013

Electronic warfare programs kick into high gear with a flurry of contract activity

July 16, 2013

How vulnerable are U.S. Navy vessels to advanced anti-ship cruise missiles?

July 9, 2013

First came VHSIC, then came MIMIC, and now comes ACE to push electronics technology

July 2, 2013

The Mil & Aero Bloggers

John Keller is editor-in-chief of Military & Aerospace Electronics magazine, which provides extensive coverage and analysis of enabling electronic and optoelectronic technologies in military, space, and commercial aviation applications. A member of the Military & Aerospace Electronics staff since the magazine's founding in 1989, Mr. Keller took over as chief editor in 1995.

Ernesto Burden is the publisher of PennWell’s Aerospace & Defense Media Group, including Military & Aerospace Electronics, Avionics Intelligence and Avionics Europe.  He’s a father of four, a runner, and an avid digital media enthusiast with a deep background in the intersection of media publishing, digital technology, and social media. He can be reached at ernestob@pennwell.com and on Twitter @aero_ernesto.

Courtney E. Howard, as executive editor, enjoys writing about all things electronics and avionics in PennWell’s burgeoning Aerospace and Defense Group, which encompasses Military & Aerospace Electronics, Avionics Intelligence, the Avionics Europe conference, and much more. She’s also a self-proclaimed social-media maven, mil-aero nerd, and avid avionics geek. Connect with Courtney at Courtney@Pennwell.com, @coho on Twitter, and on LinkedIn.

Mil & Aero Magazine

January 2014
Volume 25, Issue 1
file

All Access Sponsors


Download Our Apps



iPhone

iPad

Android

Connect with Us



Newsletters

Military & Aerospace Electronics

Weekly newsletter covering technical content, breaking news and product information
SUBSCRIBE

Defense Executive

Monthly newsletter covering business news and strategic insights for executive managers
SUBSCRIBE

Embedded Computing Report

Monthly newsletter covering news on embedded computing in aerospace, defense and industrial-rugged applications
SUBSCRIBE

Unmanned Vehicles

Monthly newsletter covering news updates for designers of unmanned vehicles
SUBSCRIBE