In the book “Wired for War” by P.W.
Singer, he discusses the notion of to what extent autonomous robots should be
allowed to possess lethal weapons. There
are obviously concerns as to how reasonable it is to allow a machine that possess
the ability to make decision that can result in the death of thousands. With this, Singer brings up the idea of arming
these machines with non-lethal weapons such as LRADs (Long Range Acoustic
Devices) and infrared directed energy (Singer, p. 84). I find it interesting that there is very
little attention given to the notion of conducting war with non-lethal weapons
in the public space. It seems that in
previous eras, wars were fought face to face and the killing technology was so
primitive that wars were won with persuasion more than lethality. As technology has evolved it seems that
humans are more concerned with blowing the enemy into submission than
presenting them with such an unpleasant situation that they are persuaded to
concede.
Looking at the government’s decision to not
use drone technology as a means for exploring the possibilities of non-lethal
warfare, it represents how there is this motivation to remove the solder from
the war, but there is no consideration as to how this may be problematic when
the other side possess the same technology.
This touches on Singers idea of a technological determinativist, technology
influences that way that war is conducted.
Just as nuclear wars were seen as amazing weapons when only the United
States and allied forces possess them, they are seen as a real threat to human existence
now that enemies have accesses to this technology. This then changed war as we know it and
causes conflicts to be handled with far more caution than those that do not possess
the weapons. The same seems possible
with the use of drones. These weapons
appear to be the answer of taking the soldier out of the war, but once the
other side possesses similar technology it forces the war to take place not
only in the occupied nation, but here in the United States. This would then
cause a whole new form of diplomacy because of the lethal potential of having
a soldier that can go on suicide missions where the only cost of the mission
may be a piece of metal with a computer inside.
If our enemies possess this technology it would seem that nobody would
be safe from attack, similar to nuclear weapons. If these weapons were developed without lethal weapons, it would usher in a new
style of war that could actually not become a threat to our homeland. Instead it could revolutionize war to be more
effective and less threatening to innocent bystanders. Just as war does not depend on soldiers, it
does not depend on the destruction of another population. It must be possible to find another way to
influence people and conduct diplomacy.
This is a really great argument I hadn't thought of. Although I guess I can see why lethal weapons still play a role in war, especially drone warfare. At least in the case of fighting sub national militant groups, it is hard to achieve peace because they have no country, no autonomy and therefore cannot reasonably be trusted to maintain the peace and thus lethal force is necessary. I do however think you are right when it comes to "conventional" war or country v. country war and I think it is a legitimate concern. I think that robotics is a wide field and lethal robotics should not be the focus. In the other post Richard brought up supporting human soldiers over drones and I think this is a step in the right direction. I think it would be overoptimistic of anyone to assume war is going to stop, so instead of trying to stop it, we need to continue to make it less and less desirable and I think the changing public reactions to war deaths is a good start.
ReplyDeleteExactly. It is interesting that we continue to create weapons that are more and more destructive to our homeland (nukes, drones, weapons of mass destruction) and yet we fault o consider the consequences of when these weapons eventually end up in the wrong hands. It is inevitable that our enemies will get their hands on this technology and then we will pay the ultimate price. Also, we never hear in the news talk about non-lethal weapons as being "cutting edge" of war.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that this is a very interesting aspect of technology and warfare that I had not thought of. With the growing evolution of warfare there seems to be no end or means to an end. We just continue to develop bigger and badder gadgets that ultimately will lead to an eventual threat to ourselves once acquired by another party. It seems like often times resources should not be put on creating new killing machines but how to deter disagreements from even reaching this point to where they are needed.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is frightening to consider the fact that what might start out as US-exclusive technology can quickly become common instruments for warfare. I think you raised a good point about how nuclear warfare ended up raising so much paranoia among all sides that it has seen a large reduction in use and has been the subject of many negotiations since.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that it is upsetting that drones are mostly being used in lethal ways instead of being used to detain. Though Singer explains that drones are being used to monitor individuals, there are even more ways that they can be used that Singer lists in his book. I think it's strange that the military doesn't seem to be as interested in evolving these methods as much as they are invested in evolving the lethal use of drones.