Throughout history there have been times when new technology changed how wars were fought, and the politics of war itself, in ways that its early adapters did not anticipate. When fragile flying machines first appeared over the battlefield, who could have foreseen that one day bombers, drones and missiles could strike with such precision and at such range that they would alter the actual role of geography in warfare?
Today, another revolutionary technology is emerging with robots, but its implications remain unclear. With the robotic revolution, America’s futurists, military leaders, strategists and policymakers must work hard to cast a light into the murky future. One way to do this is by thinking about the type of robots that will be available to tomorrow’s military and, more importantly, what their strategic, political and ethical implications will be.
Several variants of military robots are already under development or consideration. The least controversial are what might be called the “helper” robots: unarmed autonomous or semi-autonomous machines that support troops by doing dangerous or repetitive tasks. Examples include casualty evacuation, transportation, explosive clearing and reconnaissance.
The most controversial variant of autonomous systems do not yet exist but could soon: Terminator-style killer robots. The current U.S. position is that it will not develop or field such killer robots, but will instead look into what the Pentagon calls “centaur” systems where robotics and other technologies augment troops rather than replace them, leaving the decision to kill or not to kill to the human operator.
Other variants of military robots will soon follow. The Pentagon recognizes that the U.S. will not have the field of military robotics to itself and may not even dominate it. Most innovation in the field will come from the private sector and hence be available to any nation or organization with the money to buy it. And since other nations and adversary groups may be less ethically and legally constrained than the U.S., the future American military may find itself facing enemies with advanced killer robots, even if it does not have them.
This means that one additional variant of military robots won’t be autonomous systems designed to kill humans, but rather to destroy other robots—anti-Terminators. As with earlier military technologies like submarines, airplanes and tanks, there will be a constant, spiraling competition between offensive military robots and other technologies designed to thwart or destroy them.
The Pentagon recognizes that the U.S. will not have the field of military robotics to itself and may not even dominate it.
A second variant will be robots designed for highly contaminated environments following nuclear accidents, the use of nuclear or biological weapons, or pandemics. Sending U.S. troops into such situations would be extremely dangerous and expensive, yet doing nothing after a nuclear or biological disaster may not be the best response. Units of robots designed specifically for these hazardous environments would give future U.S. political leaders a wider slate of strategic options.
While the U.S. rejects killer robots, it might be amenable to ones equipped with nonlethal weapons—a third important variant. Nonlethal robots could be useful for promoting long-term security by preventing adversaries from re-infiltrating an area that has been cleared. Today, such stabilization operations require a large, often long-term troop presence, something that the Pentagon wants to avoid. A fleet of robot peacekeepers to monitor security around the clock and use nonlethal weapons to immobilize potential enemies until troops arrive could help the U.S. play a role in stabilization without large and protracted military deployments.
A fifth variant might blend robots with something else. Imagine, for instance, the melding of robots and what are called “bots” in cyberwarfare. Rather than having to enter an enemy’s computer network by taking advantage of human mistakes, like today’s bots normally do, a robot-bot clone could physically infiltrate an enemy’s infrastructure to find a vulnerable point and then tap into the network. Or imagine the “centaur” concept using an insect, fish, mouse or dog with an implanted device that gave its operator the ability to control it and communicate with it. Cyborgs of this type could exploit the organic mobility of the host and its ability to slip unnoticed past enemy guards to collect information or perform some other useful military mission. If cheap, small and disposable enough, they could be used to create a saturating, information-gathering reconnaissance network.
These are a few possible variants of future military robots; their development and proliferation will present both opportunities and challenges for U.S. policymakers and military leaders. Would the deployment of robots designed to fight other robots, for example, be subject to the same ethical considerations as the deployment of human troops? Would “centaurs” have different legal and ethical requirements than normal troops? Would cyborgs be subject to special ethical or legal limitations?
The evolution of robots will pose equally vexing challenges for the military itself. Will the professional ethos—the very meaning of being a soldier, sailor, airman or Marine—change when few troops face physical combat and most are operators or commanders of machines? How will the U.S. military build effective teams when some team members are not human, or at least not fully human?
Today, the architects of the U.S. military are capitalizing on the robotics revolution that is unfolding in the private sector, making sure that adversaries do not best the United States. That is as it should be. But as robot variations proliferate, there will be a host of even more difficult strategic and ethical questions. The challenge for U.S. policymakers and military leaders will be to remain both ethical and effective in the brave new world of robotics.
Steven Metz is the author of “Iraq and the Evolution of American Strategy.” His weekly WPR column, Strategic Horizons, appears every Friday. You can follow him on Twitter @steven_metz.
