Robots at War

Popular Science talks to the author of Wired for War: the Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century

By Val Wang Posted 04.07.2009 at 10:14 am 8 Comments

Global Hawk Drone: This spy drone can take off by itself, fly 3,000 miles, spend a day spying on an area the size of the state of Maine, fly back 3,000 miles, and then land itself. -- P.W. Singer courtesy U.S. Department of Defense

How have these robots changed the experience of war?

The very meaning of the term "going to war" has changed in our lifetime. Whether we were talking about the ancient Greeks going to war against Troy in the Iliad, to my grandfather's experience in World War II going to war against the Japanese in the Pacific, that phrase has meant the same thing over the last 5,000 years. It's meant going to a place where there was such danger that you might never return.

You have now the experience of, for example, that Predator drone pilot who appears in the book, who says, "you're 'going to war' for twelve hours, you're putting missiles on enemy targets, you're killing enemy combatants, and then you get back in your car and drive home and 20 minutes after being 'at war' you're sitting at the dinner table talking to your kids about their homework."

We're starting to see ripple effects on our own politics. As that former Secretary of Defense puts it in the book, "I like these systems because they save American lives but I also worry about more marketization of war, more 'shock and awe' talk, to defray discussion of the cost. People are more likely to support the use of force if they view it as costless." We may be taking those bars to war that we were already lowering and dropping them to the ground.

And what is it like for the Iraqis or the Afghanis on the receiving end of this technology?

The leading news editor of Lebanon [Rami Khouri], who was actually saying this [to me] while a drone was flying above him at the time, and he says, "It's just another sign of the cold-hearted, cruel Israelis and Americans who are also cowards because they send out machines to fight us. They don't want to fight us like real men. But they're afraid to fight, so we just have to kill a few of their soldiers to defeat them." That is just a graphic illustration of an absolute disconnect in the war of ideas between the message we think we're sending versus the message being received. In Pakistan, one of the most popular songs last year ["Chacha Wardi Lahnda Kyo Nahen" or "Uncle, Lose the Uniform, Why Don't You?"] talked about how Americans don't fight with honor and they just look at Pakistanis the way they look at insects. That ain't the kind of messaging you want to be sending out.

How much autonomy do you think robots should have? What direction are we going in versus what direction should we be going in?

Every time you ask about this issue of armed and autonomous robots, people always use the phraseology, "No, no, no. We'll always have man in the loop." The "loop" phraseology is like a mantra everyone has to chant. And yet, it's utter B.S.. We have systems right now that we're already granting massive amounts of autonomy to.

There's the example of the CRAM, the Counter Rocket Artillery Mortar, the little R2-D2-like system in Baghdad that automatically shoots down incoming rockets because they're coming in too quickly for humans to respond to. You've got an incoming rocket and the human can barely get to, "Oh, sh---" and it's too late. Yeah, man's in the loop, we turn it on and off, but we don't have the reaction time to decide what it shoots at and what it doesn't.

There's an incredible array of excuses we come up for giving the system more autonomy. It's everything from, 'Things are happening quickly in a war. We'll not allow it to shoot first but we'll give it shoot-back ability.' Or 'We'll design systems that don't shoot at people, they just can shoot at other weapon systems. They can't shoot at the people in the tank, they can shoot at tanks.'

Each one takes us further and further down the slippery slope that we say we'll never, ever cross. Guess what? We are directly researching armed, autonomous systems. The funniest illustration of that is the title of one of the Pentagon research projects on it, which is actually entitled, "Taking Man Out of the Loop."

single page

Previous Article: Conrad Innovation Awards Announces Winners

Next Article: See The Mount Redoubt Eruption From Space

Want to read more articles on the military, aviation, and space? Subscribe to Popular Science today, for less than $1 per issue!

8 Comments

Link to this comment

Oakspar77777

04/07/09 at 1:52 pm

We already have a "man in the loop" system that says "(1) Start System, (2) Wait, (3) Win War." The nuclear capable ICBM does exactly that and has for some time. A robotic army only changes that system in a few minor ways.

First, it is cleaner on the environment.
Second, it is more discriminating in targets eliminated.
Third, it is less threatening to surrounding countries.

We are not "fighting fair" with terrorist, nor would we ever. Fair fighting in war died with accurate artillery. Of course they will criticize us for not fighting with sticks and stones, but if we took the field with swords, do you think they would give up their guns and bombs?

The sooner man is removed from war, the better. It is difficult for people to understand cost-benefit analysis when human lives are in the balance. However, is a trillion dollars worth five human lives? Obviously. Five hundered? Five thousand? Who knows?

When the worst thing an enemy can do is make war more costly to us in terms of money, then the decision to fight or not becomes clearer and easier. How disheartening it must be for terrorist to think that they can no longer strike even American soldiers, only the endless products of Detroit!

America will never war with Russia, China, or any other international power. The inevitable cost is too great for any gain. Likewise, they will never war with us.

Only those with nothing or too little to loose would ever try. When you strip the enemy of any hope of victory, you win. Since victory for America's enemies is now reduced to inflicting any harm on Americans, taking the Americans out of the loop offers real solutions to terriorism.

Link to this comment

supergeek1694

04/08/09 at 4:17 pm

When you start giving human lives a monetary value, you stop accepting them as humans. Are you saying that you would kill yourself for money? When war is fought by robots, people will stop seeing war as a bad thing. War will happen all the time. The thing that keeps people from waging wars every day is the fact that in wars, people die. Every human taken out of risk makes it that much easier to order a war.

Link to this comment

davenjamrock

06/30/09 at 12:27 am

How disheartening when the terrorists start to take out their anger and frustrations on the civilian populations and their allies , can robots protect us then?

Link to this comment

quasi44

07/15/09 at 9:50 am

So it can shoot. I'd kick SWORD'S butt with a sword. Wussy robot.

Link to this comment

quasi44

07/15/09 at 10:06 am

Seriously, it seems to me that the ethics of using these pieces of equipment, the collateral damage caused by their use, as well as the inevitable technological advancement of those exposed to their use in the field-are all things we accept when we VOTED to put any other equipment or personnel into the field. There is no difference, except that we have a better record of the true events unfolding than troops in the thick of a situation; and who, after all, could be killed with no chance to report. If an enemy kidnaps a robot, we just track it to the bad guys.

Link to this comment

quasi44

07/15/09 at 2:25 pm

Only a tiny bit less serious. PopSci, I know that our government monitors fine publications like this one and PopMech, (I receive both) and possibly our blogs. Nevertheless, individuals like Director Peter Singer, of the prestigious Brookings Institute are necessarily difficult to contact directly. Having known of his book, and through your comprehensive yet brief description of his obvious concern with the moral and practical issues that we must find our way through as we become ever more mecha-interactive, I decided I would like to work for him. I understand it is common practice for magazines of this caliber to have contact information of it's sources. I thought since you had published one of my blogs(under quasi43, regarding my hopeful skepticism with the B.C. "Cold Fusion" article), perhaps I might have a few other opinions worth considering. Maybe a guy could get any opinions you consider valid points forwarded, especially when you consider I do receive Both magazines, and seeing as how my subscriptions are coming due, according to my wife. Trying for inventive, humorous, and creatively taking the initiative here, guys. Did I mention I receive Both magazines? As well as staying up all night thinking and blogging different issues here. Can a guy get a job, or what? Thank you for any assistance you can give. N.L.

Link to this comment

quasi44

07/15/09 at 3:30 pm

Oh Yeah, did I mention that I'd also be honored to write things for the prestigious Hearst Communications, and would be blissfully happy for life with a salary only slightly more valuable than the dryer lint that makes it's way into my empty wallet? I would, with your reader base, very much consider this work a public service in it's finest form. The bonds I've forged with new-found friends discussing developments published in these magazines have been very special to me, and the often surprisingly simple common sense solutions to problems I've encountered in life I am truly grateful for. Seems this would be the place where I sign out, and simply remain, hopefully soon to be employed, N.L.

Link to this comment

KmaxUltra

03/07/12 at 12:02 pm

Join the Robots of War Group on Flickr, please contribute your military robots photos to the group.

www.flickr.com//groups/22877928@N00/pool/show/

Technology

+ More Photo Galleries

June 2013: American Energy Independence

Five amazing, clean technologies that will set us free, in this month's energy-focused issue. Also: how to build a better bomb detector, the robotic toys that are raising your children, a human catapult, the world's smallest arcade, and much more.