By Sophie L. Buckle, April  2017.

According to John Williams (2015), the structure and capabilities of a military reflect the values and principles of the society it serves. Over the last 500 years, technological innovation has influenced the functioning of militaries worldwide through the diffusion of power throughout society. In the 1400s, societal power was centralised within forts that were guarded by relatively small armies on horseback. Technological innovations, such as gunpowder, changed the nature of warfare and made it necessary for armies to grow. This dispersed political power because the defence of nation states depended on more people. The decentralisation of power led to the birth of democracies and is one of the core principles by which a democracy functions. It is a necessary condition (Suarez, 2013).

The integration of an autonomous weapon system (AWS) into a nation’s defence mechanism could threaten this democratic principle because it could re-centralise power into just a few hands. In Daniel Suarez’s (2013) words: “We risk not only taking the humanity out of war but changing our social landscape entirely.”

Isaac Asimov (1942) crafted “The Three Laws of Robotics” in his fictional short story Runaround. The laws state that: 1) robots cannot cause harm to humans by any means, 2) they must act according to human commands unless doing so would violate the first law and 3) they must preserve themselves unless it would jeopardise the first two laws. These laws were formulated to protect the creators from their inventions. Humanity has long since ignored the first law by developing weaponised Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and the second law could be contravened if AWS are developed.

Distinctions between different types of robotic weapons and their level of autonomy are made below:

  • “Human-in­-the Loop Weapons: Robots that can select targets and deliver force only with a human command;”
  • “Human-on-the Loop Weapons: Robots that can select targets and deliver force under the oversight of a human operator who can override the robots’ actions;”
  • “Human-out-of-the Loop Weapons: Robots that are capable of selecting targets and delivering force without any human input or interaction” (Human Rights Watch, 2013).

AWS comprise the latter two categories of robotic weapons. Autonomy should be considered as a spectrum because incremental improvements to the extent of robotic autonomy are continually being achieved. Suarez argues that, increasingly, keeping a human-in-the loop is no longer technologically necessary, but is a choice. There is a general consensus that soon Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, which currently have a human-in or on-the loop, will become so advanced that they will collect too much information for humans to process fast enough to make crucial decisions. This means that these decisions will be delegated to robots. The extent to which these weapon systems will be able to act like humans with similar desires, values and moral codes is unknown. There are many sceptics in the field, but there are also a fair number of those who believe that robots may even exceed human capabilities in the future (Sparrow, 2007). It is assumed that before robotic weapons with human-like morals are developed, AWS without morals will be produced and integrated into militaries.

Robotic weaponry is attractive because they conduct “the dull, dirty, and dangerous tasks of war” (Weiss, 2011). They do not require training, they protect human troops from hazardous environments and are not affected by fatigue or their emotions (Sauer & Schonrig, 2012). Those who are sceptical argue that war conducted in this manner will be viewed as “easy, quick and clean” for the countries that possess the technology. This mentality may not acknowledge the geopolitical consequences of this type of warfare (Williams, 2015).

One of the core principles within a democracy is the equal dispersion of political power amongst adult members of society. This decentralisation of power means that a nation’s citizens can influence the government’s decision to go to war (Singer, 2012). The majority of humans experience emotion and have the capacity for compassion. They also need to be persuaded that their government’s motivations for war are justified. These qualities restrict the power of governments and deter the development of repressive regimes because citizens have the capacity to revolt if the government acts against their morals. Historically, militaries have played an important role in this because their duty is to defend the nation according to the government’s wishes. This would not occur if a military were comprised of AWS. Their inability to express dissatisfaction would make it easier for centralised, authoritarian regimes to form, undermining democracy (Human Rights Watch, 2013).

Technological innovation usually occurs within democratic countries because they tend to have a high level of economic development. This means that they have the resources to maintain research and development. However, robotic weaponry is not restricted to these countries. It is thought that around 50 countries are developing such weapons (Johnson & Axinn, 2013). Whilst democracies usually spearhead technological innovation, authoritarian states can mobilise a huge amount of resources into refining the basic designs produced by democratic states (Sauer & Schonrig, 2012). In the globalised world we live in, prototypes will proliferate through markets seamlessly. Therefore, unless there are restrictions on the development of AWS, dictators, corporations and even individuals could purchase these weapons. This would result in the centralisation of power into the few hands of those who can purchase the technology (Suarez, 2013).

Democracies aim to protect their citizens because of the power they hold. If citizens deem their lives to be in danger due to the government’s actions, the party in power will lose public support. This desire to protect citizens could make AWS appealing, as their use would prevent human troops from being in direct contact with the enemy. However, democracies tend to engage in mostly asymmetric wars and including AWS in combat would heighten this imbalance of power. It is wars of this kind that are renowned for provoking acts of terrorism. According to Peter Singer (2012), it was the US drone strikes in Pakistan that provoked Faisal Shahzad to plan the “would-be” Times Square bombings, despite the fact that the US’ strikes were intended to put an end to terrorism. Thus, the development of AWS could exacerbate conflict and cause harm to the citizens of democracies (Sauer & Schonrig, 2012). It could also have the effect of producing augmented radicalisation in countries victimised by asymmetric warfare. This would undermine democratic principles by propagating ideologies that revolve around centralised power structures.

So, will the democratic principle of the dispersion of power be threatened if AWS are deployed? Well, it’s already happening. In the United States, wartime power is dispersed between the President, who is the Commander in Chief, and Congress, which oversees the declaration of war. However, Congress only needs to be consulted to approve the deployment of human troops. Therefore, UAVs (and potentially AWS in the future) remain outside of this legislation and need no approval to be deployed. This has facilitated multiple drone strikes, for example in Pakistan and Libya, without the approval of the democratically elected Congress. If this legislation remains unchanged and robotic weaponry continues to be developed, the power to wage war and the power to harm inhabitants of other nations will remain in the hands of very few in the US (Singer, 2012).

 

References

Asimov, I., 1942. Runaround. New York: Street & Smith.

Human Rights Watch, 2013. Losing Humanity: The Case against Killer Robots. [Online]
Available at: https://www.hrw.org/report/2012/11/19/losing-humanity/case-against-killer-robots
[Accessed 1 April 2017].

Johnson, A. & Axinn, S., 2013. The Morality of Autonomous Robots. Journal of Military Ethics, 12(2), pp. 129-141.

Sauer, F. & Schonrig, N., 2012. Killer drones: The ‘silver bullet’ of democratic warfare?. Security Dialogue, 43(4), pp. 363-380.

Singer, P., 2012. Do Drones Undermine Democracy?. [Online]
Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/opinion/sunday/do-drones-undermine-democracy.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=thab1
[Accessed 29 March 2017].

Sparrow, R., 2007. Killer Robots. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 24(1), pp. 62-77.

Suarez, Daniel. “The Kill Decision Shouldn’t Belong To A Robot”. 2013. Lecture.

Weiss, L. G., 2011. Autonomous Robots in the Fog of War. [Online]
Available at: http://spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/military-robots/autonomous-robots-in-the-fog-of-war
[Accessed 1 April 2017].

Williams, J., 2015. Democracy and Regulating Autonomous Weapons: Biting the Bullet while Missing the Point?. Global Policy, 6(3), pp. 179-189.