Robot Editorial

Mechanical SoldiersA debate of ethics, mortality, and moving parts.

SynopsisLess than a millennium ago, human beings solved their violent dis-putes with the assistance of swords, shields, and arrows. The revolu-tion that was gun powder changed the rules of engagement forever by allowing soldiers to be farther away from the enemy than ever be-fore, all the while increasing the effectiveness of the slaughter. Tanks, planes, and artillery made combat even more impersonal, replacing human targets with constructions. The more that civilization ascends the steep slope of technological advancement, the greater we sepa-rate ourselves from the once inevitable consequences of violence.

Today we live in the waking hours of a new dawn for modern war-fare. The mortal soldiers of today’s armies are being increasingly as-sisted and replaced by advanced robotics at the touch of a button. If mankind survives to see the end of this century, it is not unlikely that flesh and blood will rendered obsolete in light of titanium and hyperconductivity.

The implications of this are subjective to priority. On one hand, the development of these technologies will be a boom for the advance-ment of science and a quite literally a lifesaver for our contemporary warriors. On the other, our ever increasing distances from the bat-tlefields we take part in will desensitize both our soldiers and civilians to the consequences of war, in addition to serving as a rallying cry to resist the cowards who hide behind their androids and autonomous gunships.

The purpose of this study is to provide an objective viewpoint on the matter so that the audience may decide whether we should continue down this path or radically change our philosophy of engagement.

1849Attack Balloons

From early 1848 through mid-1849, the Austrian Habsburg Empire worked to crush nationalist rebellions against their authority. When the empire wanted to quell an uprising in Venice, its military turned to attack balloons.

While not robots, per se, the balloons were some of the earliest recorded unmanned aerial-attack vehicles. Many of the 23-foot-diameter balloons were launched from a ship docked near the city. They were released into the wind armed with bombs controlled by timed fuses. The attacked worked, even though some of the bal-loons were blown back and exploded near the Austrian army.

1940’sThe Goliath

The German Goliath tracked mine looked like a small tank with no turret. It was mobile, expendable and packed quite a punch. The Nazi Wehrmacht used the Goliath to clear mines and bunkers, but the Goliath could also be a mobile bomb.

The early unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) was controlled by a sol-dier standing a safe distance away. The soldier had a remote con-trol, which was attached to the Goliath by three wires. Two of the wires were used to steer the 4-foot-long vehicle. The last wire was used to fire the explosives.

Hitler’s army used Goliaths on the Poles during the Polish Uprising of 1944. Since the Resistance didn’t have many anti-tank weapons, volunteers were sent out to run behind the Goliaths and cut the strings

1898Tesla’s Boat With a “Borrowed Mind”

In 1898 maverick inventor Nikola Tesla shocked spectators at a New York electrical exhibition with his remote-controlled boat.

The machine was the first its kind. Tesla described it as being equipped with a “borrowed mind.” In reality the scientist was con-trolling the boat with radio waves via signals sent through a remote control. To the audience, it must have seemed as though he was controlling the boat with his thoughts.

According to Tesla biographer John Jacob O’Neill, when a reporter suggested to Tesla that his boat would make a powerful weapon, the inventor erupted. “You do not see there a wireless torpedo,” Tesla said. “You see there the first of a race of mechanical men which will do the laborious work of the human race.” However, correspondence between Tesla and his friend and benefactor, John Jacob Astor, suggests that Tesla was trying to sell his invention to the U.S. Navy. But

1960’s & 70’sReconnaissance Drones

As far back as the late 1930’s, the U.S. Navy and Air Force used unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) as target drones. Thanks to the suc-cess and reliability of those drones, the military began looking for other ways to use the planes. Reconnaissance seemed like an obvi-ous choice.

In the late 1950’s, the military contracted Ryan Aeronautical Com-pany to build two types of recon drones. The first were modified target drones meant for shorter missions. These “Lighting Bugs” collected intelligence on targets in Vietnam, China and North Korea during the 1960’s and early 1970’s. But for longer-range missions, like deep into China for a look at the nuclear testing area at Lop Nor, a different kind of UAV was needed. Enter the Compass Arrow.The UAV had a wingspan of 48 feet and carried a payload of over 300 pounds. It had some stealth design, which was advanced for the mid-1960’s, a rounded fuselage and tail fins that were rotated in. The engine was mounted above the fuselage to minimize the infrared signature. A sexy UAV, to say the least, but it moth- balled for political reasons before it was ever used.

1980’sRobotic Ranger

It proved easier for engineers to build an unmanned vehicle that goes through the air than an unmanned vehicle that moved on the ground.

Before 1988 UGVs were far behind UAVs in terms of development, but by the end of the decade they had begun to catch up. Un-manned ground vehicles from the Robotic Ranger, which was de-signed as an armed moving platform, to the ROBAT -- a modified M-60 tank meant for mine clearing -- were tested and funded.

2002 First UAV Dogfight

In 2002 the Air Force official changed the Predator’s designation from RQ-1 (R for reconnaissance) to MQ-1, with an M for multi-use. Not just for intel gathering anymore, the Predators now had teeth.Starting in 2002 armed Predators began bombing targets in Af-ghanistan.

Before the 2003 invasion, Predator drones were per- forming recon-naissance in Iraq. In December 2002, a Predator encountered an Ira-qi MiG-25. The MiG shot at the Predator; in response the Predator crew, flying the plane from a command center miles away, ordered the drone to shoot back. The Predator was destroyed, but it was the first time a UAV and a conventional aircraft engaged in combat.

Military Robots Through TimeThe multi- generational development of mechanical warriors

MQ-9 REAPERThe Reaper is a larger, more powerful and heavily-armed version of the Predator that can be equipped with precision-guided bombs and Hellfire missiles. Manufactured by the same firm that makes the Predator, the plane is 11 meters (36 feet) long with a wingspan of 20 meters (66 feet). It can cruise at 200 knots and reach an altitude of up to 15,240 meters (50,000 feet).

RQ-4 GLOBAL HAWKDesigned to replace the Cold War-era U2 spy plane, the jet-powered Global Hawk flies re-connaissance and surveillance missions at high altitude using sophisticated sensors and cameras. The plane, made by Northrop Grum-man, can fly for up to 35 hours at an altitude of 18,288 meters (60,000 feet) and reach a speed of 340 knots.

RQ-11 RAVENThe smaller Raven can be carried in a back-pack and is launched into the air by hand, al-lowing soldiers to look at video from around a corner or over the next hill. Weighing in at 1.9 kilograms (4.2 pounds) and less than a meter long, the Raven can fly for up to 80 minutes and reach a speed of 52 knots. Manufactured by Aeroenvironment, the plane was first de-ployed in 2004.

Meet the FamilyThe United States military’s robotic weapons

SWORDS The Special Weapons Observation Remote Direct-Action System (SWORDS) is a ground robot designed to be armed with an M-16 ri-fle, a machine gun or a rocket launcher. Three robots have been built so far and reportedly the military and the contractor, Foster-Miller, are working out remaining technical prob-lems. The US Army has reportedly used the SWORDS robots for surveillance and guard missions in Iraq but the vehicles have not fired a shot in combat.

MULEThe military is testing and developing other armed ground robots, including the MULE- a vehicle about the size of a Humvee armed with anti-tank missiles and a turret- mounted machine gun. The Multifunction Utility/Logis-tics and Equipment (MULE) robot is supposed to fire only when a human operator remotely pulls the trigger. The MULE could be ready for deployment as soon as 2014.

MQ-1 PREDATORThe Predator is a propeller-powered drone that can fly at an altitude of up to 7,620 me-ters (25,000 feet) for up to 24 hours, with video cameras and radar sending back data to a control center thousands of miles away. Originally designed for surveillance and used heavily in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Predator can be armed with two Hellfire anti-tank mis-siles. Slightly smaller than a Cessna plane, the Predator is about eight meters (27 feet) long with a wingspan of more than 14 meters (48 feet). The aircraft, made by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, cruises at a speed of 70 knots.

LANDSHARKBlack-I Robotics Landshark DUCGV (un-manned crossover ground vehicles) are fast-er, stronger, and more affordable than most robots on the market today. The design has been recognized for its use in military opera-tions and has been awarded an $800,000.00 contract from the U.S. Governments Technical Support Working Group (TSWG). They plan on developing and testing low-cost, robust, and mid-size unmanned ground vehicles that can be used for defense and homeland secu-rity operations.

In 2006, the Allen-Vanguard Corporation of Ottawa, Canada announced that it had received notification from the Canadian De-partment of National Defence (DND) that the Company’s Vanguard Mk2 bomb disposal robot has been selected for the Canadian Forces (CF) “MINI-ROV” program.

In 2007, in South Africa, a software glitch led the antiaircraft cannon Oerlikon GDF-005 to malfunction and kill nine soldiers and seriously injure 14 others during a shooting exercise.

In early 2011, the Japanese unveiled a robotic exoskeleton dubbed HAL intended for help-ing the elderly and partially paralysed to walk again. The United States is already in the pro-cess of making a deal to purchase this tech-nology for military use.

The passion for robotic warfare isn’t limited to the United States alone

International Military Robots

In 2010, Iran developed the Surena 2. The humanoid relies on gyroscopes and acceler-ometers to remain in balance and move its legs, still very slowly, but Yousefi-Koma says his team is developing a “feedback control system that provides dynamic balance, yield-ing a much more human-like motion.”

In the 1930’s the soviets made a remotely con-trolled tank called the Teletank. The tank’s control system was modified and pneumatics, electric relays and radio signals were used to control the tank.

The Goliath was the name of a mobile land mine used in WWII by the Third Reich’s forces. It was approximately 1.50m long, 0.85m wide and 0.6m high. It had two tracks and it was controlled remotely using a wire. The Goliath was intended to be blown up at the target. So it was not reusable.

From Fantasy to RealityA few robots that share an uncanny resemblance to those from fiction

Big Dog

United States Military Drone

XOS Power LoaderAlien 1979

ATATThe Empire Strikes Back 1980

Imperial Probe DroidThe Empire Strikes Back 1980

ATATThe Empire Strikes Back 1980

Robots are less likely to commit war crimes

The Pentagon has invested $4 billion into research programs, among them the ALADDIN artificial intel-ligence systems, with the purpose of creating robotic soldiers that can make decisions autonomously and objectively based on data they gathered and cross referenced between other devices. Experts such as Ronald Arkin, a computer scientist at Georgia Tech university who is currently commissioned to develop software for the Army, believes that although not “perfectly ethical in the battlefield”, robot soldiers will “perform more ethically than human soldiers”. Robots will be programmed to be indifferent to emotion and the value of their own lives in order to ensure that they would not fear death or seek vengeance for the deaths of others.

Robots process information quickly and more effectively

The British defense company BAE believes that eventually robots will be able to outperform human sol-diers when making crucial decisions on the battlefield. ALADDIN (Autonomous Learning Agents for De-centralized Data and Information Networks), an artificial intelligence system, is BAE’s response to this conviction. Units would be equipped with intelligence gathered from UAV observations, soldier-based sensors, and satellite data. The ALADDIN system would employ an impressive arsenal of algorithms -- such as game theory, probabilistic modeling, and optimization techniques -- to predict the outcomes of various events on the battlefield and allocate resources far more quickly and efficiently than humans trying to process the same data.

Robot development stimulates growth in industry

Federal funding for the development of technology has long been a boon for the advancement of civiliza-tion. Such investments led to the invention of countless devices and abilities that as citizens of the first world we have come to take for granted. Computers (both laboratory and personal), cell phones, GPS, the internet and high speed aircraft have all been the result of military spending. Without even taking into account how much easier life has been made by these technologies, their stimulating effect on the economy is indisputable. Through funding the development of military robots, scientists will undoubtedly find numerous applications outside the battlefield. Once these applications have been discovered, it is not unlikely that we will see a surge in the economy if not an unprecedented change in lifestyle not unlike the effects of the invention of the internet.

The Positives of Military Robots

Robots are more likely to commit war crimes

There are two types of robots; those controlled by humans and those with artificial intelligence. The hu-man controlled robots are drones where a human being is basically playing a video game. With real sol-diers there would be distinct emotional reactions to murder, punishment, and war crimes. Behind a com-puter monitor, it all seems less real. Operators or more likely to blast enemies, even in retreat, as killing becomes surreal. A 9 to 5 job where you continually murder and never realize the repercussions of your actions. Robots with advanced AI are also only as good as their programming allows. Even if the robots are designed to not commit war crimes there is always the chance or malfunction, hacking, or hijacking.

Robots lack the adaptability of a human soldier

The human brain has almost unlimited memory, constantly changing and adapting to the body’s stimuli. A robot has a set amount of memory and computing power. The battlefield changes rapidly. A robot would use predetermined “chess moves” to figure out the proper strategy. A human would use their common sense and wealth of knowledge. A robot may have quicker reaction times but at the cost of ac-cidents, post-traumatic stress to human soldiers and robot manufactures, and creating a profitable career in robotic hacking.

Robot development may pose a threat to world industry

Our country is not in a total war, our nation’s industry has not be privatized by the military. The economy is based on the needs of the market. On the short term, development would cause a spike in technology and industry, but in the current global economy the job of making robots would be sold to the lowest bid-der which would create non-superior products. Also, with the advent of more efficient killing machines, there would be fewer enemies to kill and the industry would eventually be crippled. Older models would be shipped to poorer countries and, much like nuclear materials or cold war weaponry, anyone with money could get their hands on a robotic soldier.

The Problems with Military Robots

The Three Laws of Robotics

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law

How well programmed are WE?

The Philosophy of Robotics

The Three Laws of Robotics were written by science fiction author Isaac Asimov. They were first introduced in his 1942 short story Runaround. Although the first rule renders this code useless for use of robots in the military, they provide an interesting framework for understanding how robots and our common percep-tion of their role have been an integral part of our culture since long before they became a reality.

Typically, modern culture has viewed the robot as an assistant as opposed to an autonomous being. Despite this, advancements in artificial intelligence have pushed this perception farther and farther from the reality. It seems inevitable that self-operating machines will eventually become an integral part of our daily life. Whether this is ethically sound for the military to take advantage of, however, is the debate that concerns this investigation.

Considering that the decisions that we make as organic sentient creatures are based on complex instincts cross-referenced with logical and emotional experiences, it would seem difficult to translate this intricate process into a programming languages. Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics could be easily broken using loopholes in the language. For example, what if a robot were to decide that in order to “prevent a hu-man being from coming to harm”, it had to restrain them against their will in order to prevent them from committing harm to themselves.

As human beings we have not yet decoded the intricate mechanisms that make our brains capable of making “human” decisions. Granted, our decisions are flawed in that many humans desire nothing more than to make the lives of others a living hell. A robot mind could plausibly prevent malicious intent, but whether it will be able to handle the nuances of battlefield decisions is yet to be seen. Let us hope that we do not discover that they are incapable the hard way.

Final WordOpinions from some of today’s sentient beings

We cannot halt the development and deployment of military robotics. To do so would not only undermine the value of the technology we possess, it would stifle economic growth. Robotics allow our priceless human soldiers to avoid unnecessary dangers. The prospect of limiting our arsenals to manned-only systems would be foolish and unnecessary. Robotic soldiers can and will be programmed to perfection, perhaps even to a point where they are pref-erable to human operatives. The benefits of these machines performing as equivalents to their human counter-parts are indisputable. Countless lives will be saved, and with the liquidation of superfluous human positions, so will countless dollars. Even if you had no enthusiasm for a technologically advanced military, the boon for innovation back at home deserves serious consideration. Most modern technology is the product is military spending; Computers, GPS, and the internet are all the result of such. These are inven-tions that play an invaluable role in our day to day lives. If the military makes breakthroughs in robotics, we can be certain that we will share the prize. Hindering the process of technological innovation is counter-productive, and all but assures that we will fall behind wiser nations in the race to the future.

“

”

The Militarization of advanced AI in robotics is the most incomprehensibly stu-

pid idea in human history. Siting examples from science fiction is the ultimate place to search. Every time we give advanced AI the ability to wield weapons or great power they turn against us and attempt to either enslave or destroy us, their human creators. In a war against machines, they think on a far more calculated level. Think about how a calculator can solve basic, and even advanced math instantaneously, a war machine would be able to solve battle strategies just as fast. In addition, their metal bodies that feel no pain and are far more resilient, allow them to take more damage and deal out more in turn.

In first example we have the obvious, Terminator. When that horrifying ma-chine gained self-awareness due to the highly advanced AI, it systematically launched a massive assault on the entire human race. From then on the world was plunged into terror and darkness with humanity crumbling at ev-ery single turn. This fate was very similar within the Matrix. Again, humanity created a great thought producing device. However, when things got hairy, they fought for their own independence and liberty. This resulted in all of human kind becoming nothing more than batteries to power the machines. WE became slaves and cattle to our own creations.

“

”

GlossarySome terms you my be unfamiliar with

Autonomous- Self-governing. For instance,

autonomous UAVs only need ground support during

takeoffs and landings. All other mission tasks includ-

ing navigation are pre programmed so that onboard

computers can take care of all combat operations on

their own. Any fully autonomous UAV or UGV must

be sophisticated and reliable enough to assess the

situation and apply the current rules of engagement.

EOD- Explosive Ordinance Disposal. EOD was one

of the first jobs for military robots. Instead of putting

humans in danger, these robots can inspect and in-

vestigate suspicious objects, and neutralize them by

disrupting sensitive activation devices, or by moving

the object to a safe place.

GPS- Global Positioning Satellite

Man-Portable Robotic Systems -

UAVs or UGVs that can be carried by a single person.

RSTA- Reconnaissance, Surveillance, and Target

Acquisition

Semi-Autonomous- Partially self-gov-

erning. Semi-Autonomous aerial vehicles require

ground control during important portions of flight

like takeoff, landing, weapons employment, and

some evasive maneuvers. Semi-Autonomous ground

vehicles would be able to avoid obstacles while the

operator focuses on other more mission oriented

tasks.

Tele-Operated- A machine that is Tele-Op-

erated is operated at a distance. Tele-Operated is the

technical and research version of the conversational

term remote control.

UA/GCV- Unmanned Aerial/Ground Combat

Vehicle, sometimes used to reflect the difference be-

tween vehicles meant for reconnaissance and others

that are armed.

UA/GS- Unmanned Aerial/Ground System,

sometimes used to reflect the fact that these are not

just aircraft, but systems including ground stations

and other elements.

UAV- Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

UGV- Unmanned Ground Vehicle