Autonomous Battlefield Robots

Transcription

1 Autonomous Battlefield Robots OVERVIEW As robotics technology advances towards the creation of autonomous systems, military personnel, policy makers, scientists, activists and more continue to debate the ethical dilemmas of autonomous weaponized robots. While unmanned aircraft vehicles (UAVs) have been developing since the Cold War and Vietnam, key decisions are still remotely controlled by human operators. Autonomous systems are being developed in multiple countries, including the US, which would in theory allow a robotic system to operate with little or no human input. The question that arises is whether or not these robots would increase or decrease the humaneness of war in regards to collateral damage and mercy on the battlefield. BACKGROUND An unmanned aircraft is an aircraft or balloon that does not carry a human operator and is capable of flight under remote control or autonomous programming according to the Department of Defense. The state of being under remote control is separate from being autonomous. The DoD also states that Unmanned systems have proven they can enhance situational awareness, reduce human workload, improve mission performance, and minimize overall risk to both civilian and military personnel, and all at a reduce cost (2013). Currently, unmanned aircraft, ground, and underwater systems are operated remotely by humans, meaning that the operators are still in-the-loop. Systems on naval vessels have the ability to automatically target incoming missiles, as they often must confront multiple, inbound, high-speed missiles. Human operators monitor the system. Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) are most often used for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions. Unmanned ground systems (UGS) expanded under Operation Iraqi Freedom and can enhance joint-service capabilities with the Army, such as with ISR, tanks, and transports. The navy also employs unmanned surface vehicles (USV), which include mine countermeasures, ISR and support. Their unmanned undersea vehicles (UUV) include, for example, missiles and torpedoes. The DoD released the Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY regarding the technologies of unmanned air, ground and underwater systems currently used and in development. 1

2 The Roadmap discusses the five-year budget reduction for unmanned systems. The President s budget request for FY 2013 was $5.6 billion, and FY 2014 showed a 33.4% reduction in research, development, testing and evaluation. Within the report, section discusses autonomy and cognitive behavior. After mentioning the high costs of manpower, it reads as follows: Therefore, of utmost importance for DoD is increased system, sensor, and analytical automation that can not only capture significant information and events, but can also develop, record, playback, project, and parse out those data and then actually deliver actionable intelligence instead of just raw information. As with other facets of unmanned systems, the need for greater autonomy is subject to fiscal pressures, i.e., operating within budget constraints while reducing manpower needs and U.S. exposure to dangerous risks and increasing operational effectiveness. Many other countries have begun developing autonomous weapons systems, some of which are in use, though not yet fully autonomous. South Korea s SGR-1 sentry robots guard the demilitarized zone with human oversight. However, they have confirmed that the robot does have a fully autonomous mode, which would allow it to make the decision to shoot. Israel has Sentry Tech systems along the Gaza border that, in theory, have an autonomous firing mode, and the Guardium, which patrols the border and can respond to stimuli in the environment. US Navy s X-47B has been developed to take off, land and refuel on an aircraft carrier without human oversight. US military SWARM technology would allow one human operator to control a fleet of aircraft, which have been developed to respond in a synchronized fashion. Many ethical concerns have been raised, questioning whether or not autonomous systems would have the ability to comply with International Humanitarian Law. Opponents cite two principles in particular, saying that there is no circumstance under which a robot would be able to abide by them. The Principle of Distinction states that combatants are the only legal targets of attack. Any other human, including but not limited to civilians, children, aid workers and journalists should not be attacked. The Principle of Proportionality requires that the collateral damage to persons and property be minimal. The military advantage must exceed the costs of the losses. The above Principles follow the definition of civilian as outlined in the Geneva Convention. In response to activism surrounding this ethical debate, the UN s Convention on Conventional Weapons will be discussing killer robots in November of this year. Last year during the CCW, the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots successfully lobbied the UN to include autonomous robotic technologies on the agenda. The campaign includes rights groups such as Human Rights Watch, Article 36, International Committee for Robot Arms Control, and Nobel Women s Initiative. The International Committee for Robot Arms Control created a declaration calling for the ban of killer robots. The declaration suggests that in-the-loop operations can continue, but 2

3 entirely autonomous weapons systems should be banned. This declaration has been signed by over 270 roboticists, scientists and other experts. A month before the CCW, only five countries vocally support a ban on autonomous military technologies: Cuba, Pakistan, Egypt, Ecuador and the Vatican. OPTIONS Option A: Continue research and development of autonomous robot technologies Pros Further exploration could lead to the development of multiple use technology. Robotics removes our soldiers from the physical danger of the battlefield. Autonomous systems can operate in environments that humans are unable to enter, such as minefields. Autonomous systems can act without hesitation, reducing the margin for error in reaction times. Autonomous systems do not feel emotions such as fear or sadness, therefore removing the emotional burden from many of our soldiers and reducing the toll on mental health. One autonomous system could operate for an extended period of time without human intervention, reducing budget and manpower needed. Cons Autonomous robots could be captured and hacked for use by the enemy, and turned against our own troops. Once the technology exists, it is easy for hostile actors to access. Though military casualties might be reduced, war could become more likely as political leaders would see their troops as facing no harm. It has been shown through drone strikes that emotional distance from the targets creates more collateral damage, i.e. out of 86 strikes in Pakistan through October of 2010, 10 targets were eliminated but anywhere between 426 and 719 civilians were killed. Even with advanced software, a robot is unable to determine the guilt of its target. As a corollary, detection systems could easily misinterpret children with guns as enemy combatants. Computer systems and technologies can easily crash or malfunction, problems from which these systems will not be immune. Option B: Continue use of in-the-loop technologies and ban the use of autonomous weapons systems Pros This would allow for continued R&D, further advancing technologies where humans retain the decision-making power and accountability. 3

4 Remote control and human soldiers would allow for decisions regarding combatants and civilians to be made with full understanding of context. The decision to ban these weapons technologies would ensure compliance with the Law of Armed Conflict and International Law, creating the norm that use of these technologies would be punishable by the international community. Cons Remotely controlled systems are expensive, requiring a large budget for manufacturing and a large number of support personnel. Hostile agents could easily jam the satellite or radio link, rendering the unmanned system useless. As a corollary, hostile agents could also hack the system, wielding it as a weapon against us. Remote systems have a delay of around 1.5 seconds, rendering them relatively useless in situations that are highly time sensitive, such as combat. RECOMMENDATION Allowing the creation and use of autonomous systems creates a moral and ethical dilemma akin to that of the nuclear power. Just as the use of nuclear power can provide clean, efficient energy and advancements to science, improving robotics technologies has limitless potential to advance knowledge and human achievement. However, just as nuclear power can be honed into a devastating weapon, autonomous weapons systems could cause indiscriminate damage, especially in the possession of hostile actors. Even in the proper hands, technology has not advanced to a point that would allow us to trust a robot with the difficult ethical decision to target and kill a human being. Deploying robots in the battlefield would inevitably raise collateral damage, reduce the already brutal humaneness of war, and diminish the chances that mercy will be shown to combatants and non-combatants alike. The technology does not currently exist that allows a robot to distinguish a child unwillingly wielding a weapon with a combatant. It also may fail to see hesitation in an opponent, leading it to strike just before or during a surrender. With the upcoming UN Convention on Conventional Weapons, I would suggest that the US support the ban on killer robots, advocating instead for continued use of in-the-loop systems and for development of autonomous technologies that contribute to the humanitarian efforts in armed conflict. Suggesting that within the next 12-plus years technology could exist that would permit life-anddeath decisions to be made by algorithms is delusional. A machine cannot sense something is wrong and take action when no orders have been given. It doesn t have intuition. It cannot operate within the commander s intent and use initiative outside its programming. It doesn t have compassion and cannot extend mercy. -Major Daniel Davis (2008), Combat Veteran Iraq 1991 and Afghanistan

5 REFERENCES Anderson, K. & Waxman, M. (2013). Law and Ethics for Robot Soldiers. Policy Review, 176, Garcia, D. (10 May 2014). The Case Against Killer Robots. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved from Human Rights Watch (2012). Losing Humanity: The Case Against Killer Robots. International Human Rights Clinic. Retrieved from arms1112_forupload.pdf Parnell, B. (18 Nov 2013). Killer Robots Could Be Banned by the UN Before Forbes. Retrieved from Schechter, E. (10 July 2014). In Defense of Killer Robots. Wall Street Journal Online. Retrieved from Sharkey, N. (2010). Saying No to Lethal Autonomous Targeting. Journal of Military Ethics, 9:4, U.S. Department of Defense (2013). Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap FY Retrieved from 5