By Gordon Corera
Security correspondent, BBC News
12 July 2016
The use of a robot to deliver an explosive device and kill the Dallas shooting suspect has intensified the debate over a future of "killer robots". While robots and unmanned systems have been used by the military before, this is the first time the police within the US have used such a technique with lethal intent "Other options would have exposed our officers to greater danger," the Dallas police chief said.
Remote killing is not new in warfare. Technology has always been driven by military application, including allowing killing to be carried out at distance - prior examples might be the introduction of the longbow by the English at Crecy in 1346, then later the Nazi V1 and V2 rockets. More recently, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones such as the Predator and the Reaper have been used by the US outside of traditional military battlefields. Since 2009, the official US estimate is that about 2,500 "combatants" have been killed in 473 strikes, along with perhaps more than 100 non-combatants. Critics dispute those figures as being too low.
Back in 2008, I visited the Creech Air Force Base in the Nevada desert, where drones are flown from. During our visit, the British pilots from the RAF deployed their weapons for the first time. One of the pilots visibly bristled when I asked him if it ever felt like playing a video game - a question that many ask. Supporters of drones argue that they are more effective than manned planes because they can usually loiter longer and ensure they strike the right target. And, of course, there is the understandable desire to reduce risks to pilots, just as in Dallas the police officers could stay protected. But critics argue that the lack of risk fundamentally changes the nature of operations since it lowers the threshold for lethal force to be used.
South Korea pioneered using robots to guard the demilitarised zone with North Korea. These are equipped with heat and motion detectors as well as weapons. The advantage, proponents say, is that the robots do not get tired or fall asleep, unlike human sentries. When the Korean robot senses a potential threat, it notifies a command centre. Crucially though, it still requires a decision by a human to fire. And this gets back to the crucial point about the Dallas robot. It was still under human control.
The real challenge for the future is not so much the remote-controlled nature of weapons but automation - two concepts often wrongly conflated. Truly autonomous robotic systems would involve no person taking the decision to shoot a weapon or detonate an explosive. The next step for the Korean robots may be to teach them to tell friend from foe and then fire themselves. Futurologists imagine swarms of target-seeking nano-bots being unleashed pre-programmed with laws of warfare and rules of engagement.
[There has been a very long history of reducing risk of our armed forces and this will, undoubtedly, continue into the future. Drone pilots have zero risk whilst still flying combat missions and effectively dispatching perceived enemy units on the ground. I doubt very much if there are any plans to make this very effective weapon system any less effective. What I suspect will happen over time is that the less efficient human element will gradually be reduced and finally eliminated in the name of combat effectiveness. It’s entirely understandable and is a very difficult idea to argue against – no matter what people are saying right now. Fully autonomous weapons will sooner or later appear on our battlefields. It’s just a matter of time.]
No comments:
Post a Comment