Impact Assessment: Robots at War

Executive summary

Although, still rare, robot are poised for a breakout in today’s modern warfare, rapidly becoming an importance piece of tomorrow’s arsenal. Among them Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), has emerged as the new Kings of the War. However, their proliferation in military arsenal has raised questions about the underlining values of UAVs. For the purpose of discussion, who are looking into Armed UAVs and the subject of war is solely on the war on terrorism. This paper seeks to answer the following questions, how has the use of UAV changed modern warfare? What are the ethical dilemmas surrounding the use of UAVs? What lies ahead of the future of UAV?

Introduction

War today, is waged against terrorism. Lives are continuously loss. To cope with the new threat, human ingenuity has developed the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). This technology is parallel to history of ideas brought about during the days of Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), commonly known as Star Wars. A programme first initiated on March 23, 1983 under President Ronald Reagan where far-fetched ideas of the use of space-and ground-based nuclear X-ray lasers, subatomic particle beams and computer-guided projectiles fired by electromagnetic rail guns – all under the central control of a supercomputer system.[1] The UAV is a step closer to an imagination brought about two decades back and like many others its breakthrough is not based on one technology, but technology of many forms coming together as one to create a grand masterpiece.

Present advantages

Previously, it matters who has got the ‘biggest stick’ and who is swinging it, with UAV, the equation has changed to wear the stick is being swing.  The UAVs have extended a soldier’s combat effectiveness, dealing fire power and combat effectiveness similar to that of fighter jet without having to be physically at the war front and extending the battlefield to the home front. Countries like America with greater combat advantage can minimize risk of soldiers dying on foreign soil by putting UAVs to deal with sticky issues on the field. These tasks are commonly known as the “Three D’s” – task that are Dull, Dirty and Dangerous

Reduction in military spending

Currently, UAVs are largely used for reconnaissance and strategic mission, its introduction into the arsenal has helped to cut down on military spending. As reports to puts it, these drones flying might seem expensive, however, they are merely a fraction of the cost of a manned fighter jet.  Take a look at the UAV Predator. One costs under 4.5million, compared to the price of a new F-35, America’s next generation fighter jet, which has yet to take flight, one can buy 30 Predators. [2] Furthermore, training a pilot to man a fighter jet is expensive. They need lots of equipment, pressure suits and oxygen supplies at high attitude. Take pilots out of the cockpit and the accounting cost of the mission change. There will be no need for pilots to fly expensive training missions to maintain flying skills, simulators can be used instead. [3] Time required to train a pilot to operate a UAV rather than fighter jet, is significantly shorter, hence a faster build-up of fighting force.

Saving lives

With a UAV, the pilot sits in a control room, communicating with others, including air-traffic control and commanders on the ground it is flying over- which could be on the other side of Earth. This sharing of intelligence allows ground soldiers to gain combat advantage, which in turns reduces their risk. Drawing our attention to the Iraq war, the drop in American casualties was largely with the help of the “unblinking stare” of drone operators where operators are assisted by object recognition software to more accurately determine friend or foe.[4] If the UAV gets shot down, the “cost of death” is merely 4.5million, a much favourable situation compared to a loss of life. When giving up blood for machines, as P.W. Singer puts it, there is no need to write a letter to its mother when the robot dies.

Psychologically disconnected

Over the decade, a fighter pilot’s combat efficiency depends on his hand eye condition, his ability to focus on the task ahead and to deal with the emotional highs and lows, even when a plane besides it get shot down. All these take a toll out of individuals. With UAV taking the frontline, being a robot, it does not get sick, or suffer from emotional highs and lows like humans. The “fear” factor has not been removed. They do not get hungry, they do not care if the UAV next to it gets shot down, for it is just metal, making UAV an ideal employee.

Humans being the weakest link

It is normally assumed that aerospace and defence technology can advance indefinitely, with the funds as the limiting factor of progress. However, today we have reached a point of significant limits imposed largely on human physiology. Human physiology does not progress to match technological advances, and it is unlikely to do so in the future. Pilots in manned fighter jets are required to operate close to physiological limits to obtain maximum manoeuvrability, because their planes can fly in complete safety under load conditions, far beyond what the unprotected human body can tolerate. The high manoeuvrability and agility performance of modern combat aircraft subject the pilots to maximum physical stress that may correspond to 7 to 9 times the normal gravitational force.  This high G manoeuvres will “starve” the brain and eyes of oxygen. Resulting in tunnel vision, grey-out vision followed by black out. Common during the 70s, pilots in the F-16 would black-out instantaneously without warning[5]. To cope with the physical stress, pilots are now equipped with Anti-G suits increasing cost of military spending. Certainly UAV, being unmanned, would be more favourable for the future due to the lower cost. With pilot’s physiology weakness removed from the equation, maybe then, the performance potential of modern combat aircraft of the third and fourth generation can be fully exploited. This would allow for greater future improvements of aerospace defence technology.

Present Issues

Achilles’ heel of UAV

Weakness of a UAV can be narrowed down into two points. Firstly, the time required between operator input and the command being carried out by the UAV. The pilot is constantly working on a delay, hence, making UAV unsuited for “dogfights” when going toe to toe with a fighter jet.[6] Secondly, the breaking of communication link between the UAV and operator. Data connection is the backbone of all strategic missions with the UAV. For the UAV to crash all that is required is for a foe to disrupt communication or for the UAV to fly out of range. Already, strong military countries such as Russia and China are capable of doing so. According to Jane’s Defence Weekly, UAVs are very susceptible to electromagnetic interference. With UAV systems going offline, combat effective range is degraded.[7]

The current proposed solution, according to Dan Isaac, a drone expert at Spain’s Centre for the Development of Industrial Technology, a government research agency in Madrid, he and others say, is to build systems which enable an operator to reconnect with a lost drone via an intermediate transmission of another nearby aircraft to “bridge” connections. However, such electronic countermeasures have failed with current technology.

Collateral Damage

Apart from communication breakdown possibility, distance, in exchange for the operator’s safety will affect an operator’s decision to authorised fire. The operator’s judgement is limited to the image feed together with the object recognition of the software and other technologies from the UAV. Decisions made on authorising fire may differ on the ground and behind a computer screen. Often, it is noted that such decisions results in civilian casualties.

For instance, on July 2011, an American drone circling above Pakistan’s North Waziristan tribal area, zeroed in on a gathering of village men, some of whom were armed, and unleashed three missiles in quick succession. It turned out to be a meeting to settle a dispute over a chromite mine. Most of the 40 or so killed were civilians. [8]

Discussion and Analysis

Providing Autonomy

In view of this weakness, experts are debating over the issue of providing autonomy to UAVs as a backup plan when communications are cut and the UAV has to “fight blind”. The autonomy includes the ability to decide when the use of lethal force. To achieve this, Ronald Arkin of Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta is trying to create artificial conscience by developing a set of rules of engagement for the use of lethal force that follows the rules of ethics.[9] This technology is definitely within since algorithm in programmes allows aircrafts to engage in autopilot from one destination to another. Likewise the flight of a UAV can occur in two clicks. Then again the question of accountability starts to arise, who is responsible if a vital algorithm fails to distinguish between a passenger bus and a military vehicle? Unlike humans, it may be unfazed by the confusion and pandemonium at a war front, it may still make mistakes on wrong, or ambiguous conditions of a battlefield. Drawing back to the case of flight 655 that occurred during 1985, Aegis, a semi-automated system used by the US  navy to distinguish military from civilian vehicles have failed to identify an Iran Air Airbus A300 from an Iran F-14[10] and got shot down. Clearly, technology itself is having as much problem as it is for humans.

Does UAV contravene to the rules of war?

Currently, humans are in the operational loop when it comes to management of robots. They play a supervisory role with authority to fire lying entirely on the pilot of the UAV. The pilot themselves must be accountable and aware of rule of engagement. Each attack must be proportionate within its right of self-defence. There is no set of international laws governing the use of a UAV. It is understood as a weapon, its usage is not lawful outside combat zones. The UAV’s role is no different from a pilot dropping a missile from his aircraft. International laws are at this stage only applicable. One such law is the law that applies to any other weapon or weapon system. If armed with conventional munitions, the law applicable to firing of a sniper rifle applies to the firing of a weapon from an armed UAV.[11]

Given its ability to strike from high above, a conflicting argument has risen with UAV being widely used for “targeted assassinations”. Usually it will circle the sky and wait for the impending target. How is the hunted able to react in the name of self-defence? Is this justified or extrajudicial when there is no moral equivalence? Furthermore, would this make justice boil down to Thrasymachus slogan of “Justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger” More importantly, such killings, will it result in vengeance and end up a never ending war against terrorism? After all, as Mahatma Gandhi puts it, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”

Bugsplat

Moral implications as mentioned earlier are starting to be a sticky issue. Already, the creation of UAV itself is starting to dehumanise people, in a subtle manner. The codename for a successful hit on a target is called “bugsplat”. As inferred by the codename, a more common understanding would be the regard of targets, in this case terrorist, as bugs. By regarding targets as “bugs”, the use of the UAV has already disregarded the rights of a terrorist by making them less human. The indirect discrimination will take away their individuality. It may be assumed that operators behind the UAV will start to see the death of a terrorist as a death of a bug rather than a human being. Such disregard can be worsened (hypothetically), especially since the operator is distanced from the front line, and insulated from risk. Probability of an operator behaving differently behind the controls as moral hazard is bound to increase. After all, sitting behind a set of control will start to make war appear all too easy.

We certainly do not want the case where the use of UAV becomes a World Cyber Games affair, where UAV is just a mere “playstation” fun going on between a UAV operator and a terrorist. War is not common as people understand the perils that he has to go through, once engaged, hence we are deterred into waging one, the psychology disconnection is a slippery slope down the future of “Gees War is so easy.”

The Future of UAV

Going Unmanned

The future of aerospace is moving towards a new arms race of unmanned aviation technology. Already the F-35 fighter jet is expected to be the last manned fighter acquired by the US. Although it is considered as the fifth generation technology, the astounding cost of operating them and supporting them is a jaw-dropping $1 trillion dollars. Its cost may appear justified by the intentions to make it effective against air defence of sophisticated enemy, such as China.  Compare that amount to the number of heavy duty UAVs such as Reapers and Predators that a country can own. To make it more convincing, compare the need for a fighter jet to carry a pilot with a survival kit, versus the UAV which requires none, the latter appears more attractive.

Growing smaller

Grabbing the headlines today are the large Reapers and Predators, but the future of UAV maybe surprisingly small. One example is the RQ-11B Raven. Portable enough to fit into a backpack, weighing only 2kg, less than the weight of 4 Ipad 2, it works as a pair of flying binoculars providing surveillance. Complemented with global positioning system and instant video feed from the Raven, the operator is capable of calling down artillery fire with precision. For added accuracy, Raven can also mark targets with a laser illuminator. Small is now the new big, definitely, a worthy addition to the combat load.

Fear for the small sized UAVs will appear daunting as ever as the US has currently working on miniaturised UAVs to work as miniature bombers mounted to grenade sized weapons. It has come to my attention that instead of conventional war doctrines of having a larger fighting force to “harass” a smaller fighting force, strategies have changed with expectation of one soldier to deal enough firepower capable of holding a platoon of soldiers, and the UAV is bringing us closer to that expectation, even if the size is getting smaller.

Better Communication

Knowing that the constrain lies heavily on the inability to maintain strong communication with the UAV. The focal point will largely be the need for new forms of communication networks away from the conventional such as the radios, away from 3G, away from Wifi, possibly a new form of radio connection. Nonetheless I believe society would be open to the idea of autonomy provided to the UAV upon loss of connection perhaps only in the form of autopilot to abort mission and return to home base rather than having the autonomy to authorise fire. Such authority may seem a little too much to be bargained for.

Flight Endurance

The role of reconnaissance requires the UAV to remain operational for as long as possible. Already the record flight for an unmanned solar-power aircraft Zephyr has clocked a duration of 14 days and 24 minutes. [12] However, outlook of an armed UAV will be more to the possibility of aerial refuelling rather than the use of solar power. For combat purposes, UAVs will have the fighting edge at night under the shroud of the night sky. This renders solar power, an unsuitable source to maintain flight endurance. The extra fuel meant the possibility of greater payload upon take-off as the maximum take-off weight is maintained by carrying less fuel and topping up once airborne.

---

[1] http://www.coldwar.org/articles/80s/SDI-StarWars.asp

[2] Robots At War: The New Battlefield by P.W. Singer, The Wilson Quarterly (1976-), Vol 33, No.1 (Winter, 2009) pp. 30-48

[3] When pilots are grounded by P.M.  http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2010/07/unmanned_aviation

[4] Attack of the drone, military technology: Smaller and smarter unmanned aircraft are transforming spying and redefining the idea of air power http://www.economist.com/node/14299496

[5] Pilot Life Support Systems Gianvanni, Paolo, Quaranta, Paolo, 1 Nov 2005, Military Technology, MLTY 26 Volume 29; Issue 11; ISSN 07223226. Copyright © 2005 Proquest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved.

[6] Ethical dilemma Hargreaves, Ben, Professional Engineering pg 21; Oct 20, 2010 ABI/INFORM Complete

[7] http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065927725 Jane Defence Weekly: Radio Interference in Iraq Hampers US UAV operations by Nathan Hodge

[8] http://www.economist.com/node/21524916 Drones in Pakistan: Out of the blue, A growing controversy over the use of unmanned aerial strikes

[9] http://www.economist.com/node/9028041 Robot Wars: An attempt to build an ethical robotic soldier

[10] Fatal Flight 655; Iran Airbus disaster, 10 July 1988, The Sunday Times ST © 1988 Times Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved.

[11] Chapter 4, Civilian Intelligence Agencies and the Use of Armed Drones, by Ian Henderson

[12] http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2010/07/longest_flight The longest flight, A new record for solar-powered aviation.