Robots on the Battlefield: Warfare from a Safe Distance
P.W. Singer | The Wilson Quarterly | January 2009.
The exponentially increasing use of robotics on the modern battlefield challenges our current understanding of technology and war in much the same way that technological advances revolutionized warfare during World War I. By the end of 2008 the estimated number of US unmanned operating systems (robots) taking part in the Iraq War could be as high as 12,000 units.
Military robots and drones range greatly in both size and cost, from the lawnmower-like PackBot produced by iRobot and the $5,000 MARCBOT to the deadly $4.5 million Predator drone and the 44-foot-long jet-powered Global Hawk. The US Army is currently planning a $230 billion Future Combat Systems (FCS) program, which aims to replace "tens of thousands of armored vehicles with a new generation of manned and unmanned vehicles and produce a computer network that will link them all together." Despite the technological hype, concern that increased robot activity on the battlefield will push human decision making "out of the loop" is rising. Recent history shows that such blind trust in technology can be deadly. On July 3, 1988 in the Persian Gulf, the new Aegis radar system falsely identified civilian Iran Air Flight 655 as an Iranian F-14 fighter, leading to its destruction and the death of all 290 passengers and crew on board. In 2003 US Patriot missile batteries accidentally shot down two falsely identified allied planes during the Iraq invasion.
With 42 countries currently working on military robotics, including Iran, China, Belarus and Pakistan, questions concerning the place of robots on the battlefield and subsequent implications for society are ever more relevant. Research shows that humans have great difficulty operating more than one unmanned device, thus instigating protocol in which robots can autonomously respond to combat situations, even with deadly force. The undeniable benefit of warrior robots is the preservation of human life. Yet, lowering the perceived human cost of war may only increase the psychological distance society already feels from warfare, and, even more troubling, may tempt political leaders further unshackled by public opinion to go to war more readily.
This summary was prepared by the Atlantic Community editorial team from "Robots at War: The New Battlefield." published here by The Wilson Quarterly, January 2009.
