Wired for War

http://wiredforwar.pwsinger.com/
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/author-pov-wired-for-war.htm

One of Obama's campaign advisers for defense issues (P. W. Singer of the Brookings Inst.) recently published a book called Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century. In an interview on "Fresh Air", Singer described the technological, political, strategic, and moral implications of this new evolution of warfare. Namely, do the "conveniences" that robotics/automation bring to modern combat affect how easily our leaders decide to wage war? Also, how wise is it to rely so heavily on this technology - what are the repercussions when it malfunctions and innocents die? Maybe due to social-ideological shifts or manpower shortages, it appears that the Pentagon has rushed to integrate automation into the military without really taking all the risk considerations into account. But that's nothing new for them, and boys will always be impatient to show off their new toys.

In rugged theaters like Afghanistan, remote-controlled Predator drones are critical for reconnaissance and air strikes. In Iraq, robots diffuse bombs, scout, and do many other tasks. Robot/drone missions in Iraq increased from zero in 2003 to 12,000 in 2008. The US military owns over 17,000 drones (5k air, 12k ground). By 2010, the Pentagon expects to spend $4.3B on such unmanned systems.

Every major technological advancement since the wheel has modified the ways that humans kill each other, so of course electronics and automation will create drastic changes. Robots can overcome some human limitations (fatigue, irrationality, variable performance, physical vulnerabilities). This can be a real help in some situations, if those robots function properly. Besides the more sci-fi models like Predator or TALON (think WALL-E with a machine gun), the majority of military automation is meant for information processing (where robots excel most over humans). Real-time, high-resolution battlefield data feeds allow decision-makers (or bureaucrats) thousands of miles from the war zone to micromanage a fight or overrule commanders on the ground. This of course creates a lot of tension and resentment among the soldiers who are risking their lives on the front lines, and the "soldiers" who watch them from afar (and may even render life-death decisions upon them without consultation).

We don't even realize how much of our national defense is already automated. Via our satellite network, computers survey and identify potential targets for attack worldwide. But the system does err, and we have ordered air strikes on what appeared to be high-value enemies (even Osama) that were actually innocent bystanders. In some cases, computers decide to shoot nearly autonomously. On-board B-52 targeting computers do 99% of the work, and the pilot just presses a button. He can't see the target on the ground and can't control the flight of the ordinance, but instead just trusts the computer. Our warships equipped with AEGIS defenses are designed to identify threats and defend the ship in case vital crew members are killed or incapacitated. But what about non-threats? One of our AEGIS ships erroneously shot down Iran Air Flight 655 in the Persian Gulf in 1988. The investigation concluded that the ship's crew misinterpreted or manipulated the AEGIS data feed tracking a commercial airliner, making it appear to be an attack plane. I know that a device is only as good as the people using it, but it's hard to believe that our trained sailors would be so trigger-happy in a sensitive conflict zone without some cause. Maybe trust or overconfidence in AEGIS provided that last bit of impetus to act on their paranoia.

Well, I guess it was cheaper to dismiss the incident as human error rather than call into question a multi-billion-dollar system deployed on over 80 US warships. But how much are robots augmenting, influencing, or outright replacing real-time human decision-making, and how will that trend grow in the coming years (especially with control of nuclear weapons)? Much sci-fi fiction involves machines, trusted with vital duties too important to be left in human hands, that end up going haywire. While we haven't had to battle a renegade Skynet or HAL2000 in real life, minor incidents have happened (read on). Our militaries will have to delicately balance the delegation of critical decisions among human and computer actors. If an Air Force bomber mistakenly transported nuclear warheads across the Midwest in 2007, obviously it couldn't hurt to add more automated failsafes and human-executed security procedures. But when is a computer allowed to override a human's decision in the interests of "national security"? Guide dogs are trained to disobey and protect their masters in cases of obvious harm, for example when a blind person wants to enter an intersection when it is not clear. Sadly, there is a thin line between protection and harm. But dogs, like computers, just act in accordance with their programming. If Asian hackers can crack most versions of Windows and crash the Microsoft website in their spare time, how can we trust programmers to design safe software that manages vital defense infrastructure? In an effort to make Windows Vista a more secure OS for our computers, Microsoft has made it nearly impossible for even experienced users to enact system changes to their own property. And there we see the trade-off with defense computing: it needs to be secure enough to resist enemy tampering, but it shouldn't be locked up so tight that humans can't "hit the kill switch" in time during a malfunction. Mistakes on either end could potentially spell doom.

New technologies completely redefine what it means to be a soldier, as well as the associated psychological burdens. Now a 19-year-old high school dropout in Nevada can contribute more to the Iraq war effort than a commissioned officer and veteran pilot stationed on a carrier in the Gulf... and they do. The author mentioned one unnamed soldier fitting that profile who became such an expert Predator pilot that he is now an instructor. He joined the military wanting to repair helicopters, but was found to be unqualified, so instead they sat him in front of a computer and he became a drone "ace". The author jokes that the military might now prefer to recruit computer nerds with sturdy bladders, rather than a jock with 20/20 vision and a 6-minute mile time. Needless to say, this change is not well received with the cocky Top Gun crowd in "traditional" pilot circles. For a military that is supposed to function as an integrated, cooperative unit, these new divisions and culture clashes cannot be overlooked.

The emergence of the Predator has also changed the military lifestyle. Drone pilots can literally work their craft as an 8-to-5 job, then come home to their families. "RC" soldiers don't even have to live with each other on a base, maintain off-duty discipline, and most importantly, don't have to get shot at or lose friends in battle. But this convenient duality is not as perfect as it sounds. The rate of PTSD among such drone pilots is actually higher than the average military, possibly due to the mental challenges of taking life one minute, then taking their kids to soccer practice the next. You can't just turn it on and off like a switch. There is inherent conflict between the civilian and military aspects of a citizen-soldier, and at least in a combat theater you can forget "the world", your comrades can support you, and also empathize with your problems. A Predator pilot can't really complain about his bad day to the wife and neighbors, without really freaking them out. And domestic problems or general busyness might be very bad distractions for inexperienced young men charged with huge responsibilities.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/08/flying-drones-f.html

Of course the military says that nothing can ever replace a brave, skilled American pilot. Tom Cruise's Maverick should be their recruiting poster boy, not Steve Urkel. But in this age of streamlining and reducing loss of (American) life, if our automated systems are performing about as well as human pilots, then why would the military continue to risk manned missions? But if they do decide to rely more heavily on RC drones or fully-automated fliers, they had better plan for the human consequences as well. As we all know, technology meant to make our lives easier often produces the opposite effect, or even introduces new problems.

Ever-increasing computing power has really blurred or destroyed the line between war games and warfare. Instead of video game makers tailoring their entertainment systems to simulate real warfare, the military is actually designing its new training and combat systems to emulate video game platforms! Maybe they figure that Sony and Microsoft have already done extensive ergonomics and performance research for their products, so if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Think I'm exaggerating? It's already happened: the company iRobot (makers of the cute Roomba vacuum) also make the PackBot for military scouting and IED disposal. It can be transported in a soldier's pack (hence the name), assembled/deployed in a few minutes, and literally controlled by an Xbox 360 controller. I guess if it's already available and validated, no need to reinvent the wheel.

The controller used with the latest Pacbot is modelled after video game controllers, making the system easier to use.

As we all know, automation and advanced electronics do fail. And for the more complex systems that are charged with life-death capabilities, failures are very costly. Our forces in Iraq are using machine gunner robots nicknamed "R2-D2" to shoot down incoming insurgent RPGs/mortars. During an early test, it accidentally fired on a US helicopter, but fortunately missed. In South Africa, they weren't so lucky. An anti-aircraft robot (with a 35 mm cannon that can literally vaporize human flesh) experienced a "software glitch", started shooting wildly, and killed 9 soldiers. And then what about the legal aftermath? What if the victims are civilians/foreign nationals? Prosecute the designers or the administrator? Or is it just tough luck?

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/robot-cannon-ki.html

Another problem with increased use of military automation by the US is our allies/enemies will invariably follow suit. And our enemies will surely be hard at work to develop countermeasures to our robots. Since many of them are remote-controlled, our adversaries could potentially turn our weapons against us. Like torture, we can't let the genie out of the bottle and expect other nations or stateless militants to refrain. And unlike Star Wars or nuclear weaponry (WMDs that the US feels entitled to maintain a permanent advantage), robotics are much more cheaper, portable, and accessible. Already US companies are selling them to foreign governments. So an arms race of this nature would be much harder to control and stay ahead of the pack. Even the Lebanese militant group Hizbullah used simple robotics in its 2006 war with Israel (the first time in history when 2 sides used robotics against each other in a war). Just imagine how automation can change the way that "suicide attacks" are carried out.

In addition, how will enemies and neutrals perceive our increased use of robotic weapons? Western powers already take a lot of heat for "cowardly" air strikes and artillery barrages that often kill bystanders. While insurgents seek to level the field and confront our forces in small arms urban fighting, they can't do anything against our bombing. They die but we don't. They don't even get to see the whites of our eyes. It makes strategic sense, but appears quite dishonorable to some who still believe in a warrior code. We "hide" behind our technology and project our force from afar. But then again, the majority of US military deaths since 9/11 are from IEDs, which are equally cowardly by those standards. Bottom line, the more we rely on robotics (for dirty jobs or innocuous ones), the more we play to the stereotype of cold, militaristic Americans. But some of this could be mitigated with better PR and disclosure. Unfortunately most armed forces are not very skilled in those areas.

-------------

The over-arching danger of high-tech war is that it builds on a trend making it less and less of a moral-social burden to wage war. Historically, war maims and kills scores of people, shatters families, destroys cities, disrupts economies, bankrupts treasures, and causes massive trauma that takes years to repair. But if robots can remove some of that stink, does war become a more desirable option? And Obama has followed Bush's example by maintaining that "all options are on the table".

Walking the streets of any American city today, a foreigner could hardly tell that our nation was at war (in 2 places). Compare that to Congo or Sri Lanka, where it's abundantly obvious. I suppose that is the nature of foreign wars, and why Bush said that it's better to fight our enemies overseas than in our backyards. But despite our haste to oust Saddam, our inflammatory bombings in Pakistan, and the many terrible episodes in American militarism, I hope that war can be a very solemn, serious decision for our current and future leaders. If the Pentagon told Obama that a Predator thinks it has OBL in its bombsights, but there's a chance that it's a false positive, and children are in the area - what is he going to do? High-tech war thrusts these rapid, difficult decisions on flawed, emotional people, and therein lies the danger.

Many ordinary people are not feeling the effects of our wars, which is both a blessing and a danger. Out of sight, out of mind. Yes we're losing international goodwill and hemorrhaging tax dollars in the War on Terror, but the sting from that will be hard to directly notice back home, and probably further down the road. The lowest of our society are the ones dying and enduring 15-month tours, while the middle-upper classes keep consuming obliviously (or fretting about the economy). Mostly our exposure to war is just some fancy graphics and press conferences on CNN. When war is so "painless" to wage, what is holding us back from engaging in it? Violence seems to be such an easy "solution" to the various frustrating tensions around the globe, but the costs are profound and enduring. Just because we can do something, and do it swiftly and efficiently, doesn't mean we should.

Since WWI, industrialization has permitted soldiers to kill each other from afar without even seeing each other, and now we're taking it to another level. Modern wars for resource control, imperialism, or proxy power struggles tend to be fought on third party battlegrounds with little damage to the instigating parties' homelands. And after the expiration of selective service, our modern "professional army" is mostly comprised of the poorer, minority, and uneducated demographics. The rich and powerful monopolize the decision to go to war, but now they can totally divorce themselves and their loved ones from enduring the direct suffering of war. Outliers like Pat Tillman and Beau Biden aside, no privileged American should ever want or need to fight for their country, except maybe out of machismo or aspirations for a future political career, both of which are not necessarily in our military's best interest. Some hawkish Americans like to ridicule Europeans for being wimps and appeasers when it comes to modern conflicts and terrorism. But today's Europeans are children of the WWII ashes, and many of their states still mandate military service. They understand war suffering better than us, and if they do have to fight, it hurts everyone from the top down.

We also have the Rumsfeld-advocated (but he is not the only one) approach of "sleek war", with a minimal number of boots on the ground and a huge reliance on technology to dominate asymmetrical wars. Yes technology can improve our military capabilities, increase efficiency, and reduce the loss of life. But for now, robots can't kick down doors, protect VIPs, and escort convoys through IED-mined highways, so we hire Blackwater mercenaries to fill that need, as a previous email described. We have so few "regular" soldiers now (plus recruiting shortages), that we use contractors to prepare meals, do laundry, maintain equipment, and fill dozens of other tasks that enlisted people used to do a generation ago (in addition to fighting). But when we outsource our military effort to for-profit corporations, how can we expect loyalty and commitment when things go bad? Will they sacrifice for the good of the nation as an oath-bound soldier would? The same can be said of automated systems. They are designed and marketed by companies following their own agendas that are not beholden to any national goals or set of principles. All they care about is selling the maximum number of units and service plans, not winning or preventing wars.

Defense is obviously easier for richer nations, who can afford the most advanced weapons. But what is to prevent the haves from menacing the have-nots who stand in the way of their strategic objectives? Like easy credit and the housing bubble, convenience can lead to irresponsibility. Readily available resources are often abused, especially if the abusers won't suffer direct consequences for their actions. Sometimes the only thing stopping bullies in the schoolyard is their fear of picking the wrong fight and losing. When it doesn't hurt us to hurt someone else, what is left to keep the peace? The whole rationale behind the nuclear deterrent was to make it too costly to attack a nuclear nation (or their friends), but how can a superpower be deterred? Hopefully our laws and political system serve that purpose, but still Congress voted overwhelmingly to invade Iraq in 2003. Well, one method of deterrent is disarmament, and refraining from developing new weapons. The chicken-hawks of the privileged class need to know that war isn't just about the victory parades and "Mission Accomplished" banners. And even if they do succeed, like the amazingly one-sided Operation Desert Storm, their glory was purchased by others' blood. "War as last resort" has now become an insincere political cliche, but it should still apply just for the rare circumstances where not fighting means catastrophe. And I think we will be hard pressed to come up with even a handful of historical examples where a conflict could only be resolved through war.