With the increasing use of drones in military operations, it is perhaps only a matter of time before robots replace soldiers. Whether fully automated war is on the immediate horizon, one researcher says it’s not too early to start examining the ethical issues that robot armies raise.
In her recent thesis on the ethics of automation in war, Linda Johansson, a researcher in robot ethics at KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden, suggests that it is necessary to reconsider the international laws of war, and to begin examining whether advanced robots should be held accountable for their actions.
The use of drones – or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) – is increasing, and more money is being poured into developing them, clearly changing the context of conflict and raising new questions.
“It's not too early to start discussing these kinds of issues … given the speed of development,” Johansson says.
According to a UN survey, civilians have been killed in 33 separate drone attacks around the world. In Pakistan, an estimated 2,200 to 3,300 people have been killed by drone attacks since 2004, 400 of whom were civilians. According to the latest figures from the Pakistani Ministry of Defense, 67 civilians have been killed in drone attacks in the country since 2008.
“Soldiers may kill other soldiers in a war - would it be permissible for someone on the other side of the earth to attack the operators who control the drones?” Johansson asks.
She also questions the ethics of assigning drone operators the task of tracking a targeted person from a safe distance for days, perhaps even a week, before striking. “This is different from ordinary combat soldiers who face their opponents directly,” she says. “The post-traumatic stress syndrome that affects an operator may be just as severe as for a regular soldier.”
Currently drones are still operated remotely by a human being, but technological advancement is so rapid that full automation is more than just a grim science fiction fantasy.
Johansson sketches out a scenario to show how reaching that point presents other ethical questions:
“Soon we may be facing a situation where an operator controls two drones instead of one, on account of cost reasons,” Johansson says. “Add to that the human tendency to rely on technology. Now imagine a situation where very quick decisions must be made. It becomes easy to step out of the decision loop and hand over control to the robot or computer.
“Man becomes the weakest link.”
It could also be argued that robots are not entitled to defend themselves, since under the rules of war they are not in danger of losing their lives. “Does it mean that they have lost the right to kill human soldiers?” she asks.
Robots, especially drones, can also facilitate the conduct of "secret war", with low transparency and minimal involvement of troops.
Drone wars
Two papers published earlier this year in the specialist journal, Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict (DAC) explored the use of drones in military operations. The articles highlight increasing levels of disapproval of the use of drones in recent US polls and suggest that drone warfare may be leading to an emphasis on tactical wins over long-term strategic victories.
Tom McCauley's 'US Public Support for Drone Strikes against Asymmetric Enemies Abroad: Poll Trends in 2013' shows that, while a strong majority of US citizens are in favour of using drones against terrorists in foreign lands, a small and increasing minority are against their use.
In contrast, majorities in most countries are opposed to US drone attacks against terrorists. McCauley says that if drones' unpopularity in the United States continue to increase, and their unpopularity in other countries persist, they may well become politically impractical, no matter how convenient and cost-effective the technology may be.
Metin Gurcan's 'Drone Warfare and Contemporary Strategy Making: Does the Tail Wag the Dog?' argues that increasing use of drones in asymmetric conflict is reversing the dominance of strategy over tactics and may be undermining civilian control of the military.
Gurcan notes that while there are a number of advantages to using drones, such as effectiveness at removing key targets and avoidance of friendly casualties, they may also increase the power of extremists amongst civilian populations by creating a siege mentality.
He notes that breaking the power of extremists does not rest on the killing or capture of high-value targets, rather it depends on removing their power to intimidate - something that drone strikes cannot do, he adds. This article also reveals that concerns about military drones are salient not just for civilians, but even for army officers such as Gurcan.
The use of drones in US military operations has increased rapidly in the last decade, with the US annual budget for drones growing from $1.9 billion in 2006 to $5.1 billion in 2011.
This development has sparked considerable debate in countries that operate drones and in populaces living with them, and has resulted in a backlash in some audiences. The two papers published in DAC raise issues about military use of drones that will likely grow in the years to come.
Les Hunt
Editor