the ethical, psychological effects of robotic warfare
In his book \"War wire: the robot revolution and the conflict of the 21st century\", Singh explores the progress of robots in war.
As Singh explained to Terry Gross, the military used more than 5,300 unmanned aircraft in Iraq, including one called a predator.
About the size of a Cessna aircraft, before the military decided to arm it, the predator was originally used as a reconnaissance tool.
\"Now it\'s used on Hunter --
\"Killer character,\" said the singer.
These advances have driven the development of science fiction, Singh said.
A series of moral dilemmas have been put forward: \"We have to figure out, what are the legal consequences of what you call an unmanned massacre?
Who are you responsible?
\"The psychological impact of soldiers who are in a state of war but are not physically in a state of war is also to be discussed.
Singh noted that pilots who control robotic aircraft can eat with their children in 20 minutes from killing enemy fighters to sitting down.
The interview was originally broadcast on January. 22, 2009.
There is little to warn about the dangers of the future.
The Iraqi insurgents ambushed him with great cunning.
The bomb is hidden on the side of the road and looks like other garbage.
American soldiers call these juries
The official abbreviation for improvised explosive devices-improvised explosive devices.
The unit that searches for bombs is explosive disposal (EOD)
In a team that tries to suppress the roadside explosion, the end of the tip.
By 2006, about 2,500 of the attacks took place within a month, and they were the main cause of casualties in the United States. S.
Army and Iraqi civilians.
During a typical trip to Iraq, each EOD team will have more than 600 calls, resolving or safely exploding about two devices a day.
Perhaps the most convincing sign of how important the team\'s work is to the American war effort is that the insurgents are starting to offer a $50,000 bounty for killing an EOD soldier.
Unfortunately, the call to this particular improvised explosive device will not end.
It was too late when the soldiers were close enough to see the protruding wires on the bomb.
There was no time to dismantle the bomb or to run away.
The improvised explosive device exploded in a wave of flames.
Depending on how much explosives are loaded in an improvised explosive device, a soldier must be 50 yards away to escape death, and half
To avoid the damage caused by bomb fragments.
Even if a person is not hit, the pressure of the explosion itself will break the bone.
But the soldier was on the top of the bomb.
With the removal of flames and debris, the rest of the team moved forward.
They found few of their teammates left.
They loaded their bodies in helicopters and brought them back to the camp near Baghdad International Airport.
That night, the commander of the group, a Navy sergeant, did his sad duty and wrote a letter home on the matter.
The explosion had a particularly serious impact on his troops.
They lost their most fearless and skilled soldiers.
More importantly, they lost a valuable member of the team, a soldier who saved the lives of others many times.
The soldier, who has always played the most dangerous role, was willing to scout improvised explosive devices and ambush first.
However, no complaints have been heard by other soldiers of the unit.
The chief pointed out in his condolences the bravery and sacrifice of the soldier.
He can\'t change what happened because of his own.
But he also expressed his thanks and talked about the glimmer of hope he had gained from the loss.
At least, he wrote, \"you don\'t have to write to its mother when a robot dies.
\"The soldier in this case is a 42-
A weighing robot called PackBot
The PackBot is equipped with a variety of cameras and sensors, as well as a flexible arm with four joints, the size of which is equivalent to the mower.
It moves using four \"flippers.
\"These are tiny pedals that can also be rotated on the shaft, so that the robot can not only use the pedal to scroll forward and backward like a tank, but also flip its track up and down (
Just like the SEALs are moving.
Climb the stairs, rumbling on the rocks, squeezing twisted tunnels, and even swimming underwater.
The cost of this \"death\" to the United States is $150,000.
The destination of the two chiefs-
Located in a monotonous office park outside Boston, it is located in the story concrete office building opposite the macaroni barbecue restaurant and the men\'s clothing store.
Around the corner is the logo of a company called iRobot, a manufacturer of packaging robots.
The name was inspired by Isaac Asimov\'s 1950 science.
Novel classics I, robots, robots in the future will not only do ordinary housework, but also create life --and-Death decision.
In a place like this office park, the future of war is being written.
* PackBot is just one of many new unmanned systems that are running in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan today. When U. S.
On 2003, troops entered Iraq and there were no robot troops on the ground.
By the end of 2004, the figure reached 150.
By the end of 2005, the figure was 2,400, more than double next year.
This figure is expected to reach 12,000 by the end of 2008.
These weapons are only the first generation.
What is already in the prototype stage is a variety of unmanned weapons and fancy technologies, from automatic machine guns and robotic stretchers to tiny but deadly robots of the size of insects, they seem to be the craziest science fiction.
Not only must Pentagon planners figure out how to use machines such as packaging robots in today\'s war, but they must also figure out how they should plan the battlefield in the near future, as one official said, \"Most of them are robots.
\"The most appropriate history parallel to the current period of robot development is likely to be the first world war.
At that time, strange, exciting new technologies were introduced and used more and more on the battlefield.
It\'s really H. G.
Wells\' 1903 short story, the land iron plate, inspired Winston Churchill to support the development of tanks.
Another story, by. A.
Milne, creator of the Winnie-the-Pooh series, was one of the first to propose the use of aircraft in war, while Arthur Conan Doyle (in \"Danger\")
And Verne (
20,000 miles under the sea)
Created the concept of using submarines in war.
These new technologies do not really change the fundamentals of war.
But even the earliest models quickly proved useful enough to show that they would not soon be put into the field of fiction again.
More importantly, they not only raised the question of how to use them best in combat, but also raised a series of new political, moral and legal issues.
For example, the different interpretation of how the submarine war should be carried out by the United States and Germany helped the United States get involved in a World War.
Similarly, aircraft have proved useful for finding and attacking troops at further distances, but also allow for strategic bombing of cities and other locations, which extends the battlefield to the front line.
Thanks to today\'s robotics, the same recalibration of thinking about war has begun.
In civil terms, experts like Microsoft\'s Bill Gates described robotics as near where computers were in early 1980 --
Although it is still rare, it is ready for a breakthrough.
On the military side, the unmanned system is rapidly being put into use in almost every area of war, leaving more and more soldiers out of danger and making their enemies an increasingly precise target.
They are changing the experience of the war itself.
This makes the first generation of soldiers using robots worried that the remote-controlled war seems too easy and tempting.
More than a century ago, General Robert E.
Lee\'s quote: \"It\'s a good thing that we find war so terrible, otherwise we\'ll love it.
\"He didn\'t think that a pilot could\" go to war \"by firing missiles at enemies thousands of miles away every morning at Toyota to work in a compartment and then go home in time, prepare for his child\'s football practice.
When our weapons are designed to have more autonomy, deeper problems arise.
Can new weapons reliably separate friends from enemies?
What laws and ethics apply?
What are we talking about when we send a drone to fight for us?
What is the \"message\" received by someone on the other side?
In the end, how will humans continue to master weapons that are faster and smarter than they are?
The driverless system that has been deployed to Iraq has many shapes and sizes.
Overall, there are now about 22 different robotic systems running on the ground.
A retired military officer called these new forces \"the army of big robots \".
\"A robot companion of the robot
The soldiers in Iraq are Talon made by Foster. Miller Inc.
A few miles from iRobot\'s office. Foster-
Miller built the EOD version of TALON, but it also transformed the machine into a \"killer app\", that is, a special weapon observation reconnaissance detection system or sword.
The new design allows users to install different weapons on robotsincluding an M-
Rifle, machine gun, grenade or rocket launcher
It\'s easy to swap them out. Another robo-
The soldier is MARCBOT (Multi-
Functional Agile Remote
MARCBOT is one of the smallest but most used robots in Iraq. It looks like a toy truck with a camera. like mast.
The little robot spent only $5,000 to scout the enemy and search for hidden explosives under the car.
MARCBOT is known not only for its small size;
This is the first ground robot to draw blood in Iraq. One unit of U. S. soldiers jury-
Manipulate their marcbot to carry clay more. Personnel mines.
If they think a rebel is hiding in the alley, they will send a Marko robot down first and take him out with Kramer if they find someone ambushes.
Of course, every rebel killed in this way means an explosion worth $5,000.
But so far the army has not billed the soldiers.
The world of unmanned systems is not limited to the ground in war.
One of the most familiar drones (UAVs)
27 feet in length, propeller-
The power drone is a little smaller than the Cessna plane.
Perhaps its most useful feature is that it can stay in the air for 24 hours at a height of up to 26,000 feet.
Predator is called \"reach-
\"Back\" or \"remote\"
When the drone flies out of the theater base, the human pilot and the sensor operator, 7,500 miles away, converts from a set of single-
A wide trailer at the Nellis and CRIC air bases in Nevada.
This operation creates a new situation in which pilots, while still coping with family stress, experience a psychological disconnect of \"in a state of war.
In the words of a Predator pilot, \"You see Americans killed in front of your eyes and then have to go to the parent conference.
The other person said, \"You have to fight for 12 hours, shoot weapons at the target, command the killing of enemy fighters, and then you get on the bus, drive home, within 20 minutes, you sit at the table and talk to your children about their homework.
\"* The price per predator is less than $4.
5 million, before you compare it to the cost of other military aircraft, it sounds like it is.
In fact, for a new F-
The next one at the Pentagon
A generation of manned fighters (
Haven\'t even taken off yet)
You can buy 30 predators.
More importantly, the low price and lack of human pilots means that predators can be used for tasks with high risk of being shot down, such as slow travel on enemy territory.
The predator was originally designed for reconnaissance and surveillance, but now some people are equipped with lasers --
In addition to the deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan, predators and their larger, more well-equipped brothers and sisters, the Reaper, are increasingly being used to attack suspected terrorists in Pakistan.
According to news media reports, the drone is crossing
Pakistan\'s prime minister says air strikes have taken place every other day in the border area, the biggest point of controversy between his country and the United States.
In addition to predators and Reaper, a veritable drone zoo is now hovering over a war zone.
A small drone like a crow, only over 3 feet long, or a smaller wasp (
Camera with peanut size)
Thrown into the air by individual soldiers, flying above the roof, transmitting video images on the street or on the other side of the mountain. Medium-
Drones of the size of a circle of shadows are over the entire block at a height of more than 1,500 feet m and can monitor anything suspicious.
Large predators and Reaper roam the entire city at a speed of 5,000 to 15,000 feet, looking for targets.
Finally, the invisible sight, 44-foot-long jet-
The Global Eagle scales in a larger range at a speed of 60,000 feet, monitors electronic signals and captures a large number of detailed images for the intelligence team to screen.
Each Global Hawk can stay in the air for up to 35 hours.
In other words, a Global Hawk can take off from San Francisco, spend a day searching for terrorists across Maine, and fly back to the west coast.
Therefore, great changes have taken place over the war.
During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, only a small number of drones were used, and only one drone supported the main U. S.
Army combat forces
Today, there are more than 5,300 drones in the United States. S.
The army\'s total inventory will not have a task without them.
One Air Force Lieutenant-General predicted, \"given the growth trend, it is not unreasonable to assume that conflicts involving tens of thousands of people in the future are not unreasonable.
\"* Between 2002 and 2008, USAS.
The defense budget grew by 74% to $515 billion, excluding the hundreds of billions spent on military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The defense budget has reached its highest actual level since 1946 (
Although the percentage of GDP is still much lower)
Spending on research and development of military robots and subsequent procurement is booming.
For example, since 2001, the amount spent on ground robots has roughly doubled annually.
A robot executive said, \"make them as fast as possible,\" he was told by Pentagon buyers after 9/11.
As a result, an important military robot industry began to emerge.
World War I was equally instructive.
A report from the Pentagon Defense Advanced Research and Planning Agency (DARPA)
It is worth noting that only 239 Ford T-cars were sold in 1908.
Ten years later, more than a million.
It is not difficult to see the attraction of robots to the Pentagon.
Most importantly, they save lives.
But there are also some weaknesses and shortcomings in our humanity.
\"They are not hungry,\" said Gordon Johnson of the Pentagon Joint Forces Command . \".
\"They are not afraid.
They will not forget their orders.
They don\'t care if the man next to them has just been shot.
Will they do better than humans? Yes.
\"Robots are particularly attractive for dealing with roles that people call\" Three D --
A boring, dirty or dangerous task.
Many military tasks can be very boring and can also bring physical burden.
For example, people who do work that requires a high level of concentration need to rest frequently, but robots don\'t need to rest.
Using the same mine detection device as human beings, today\'s robots can complete the same task with higher accuracy in about the fifth time.
Driverless systems can also operate in \"dirty\" environments, such as war zones plagued by bad weather or filled with biological or chemical weapons.
In the past, the limits of human beings and machines were comparable.
When the early fighters
Speed or acceleration, for example, the same gravity pressure (g-forces)
This knocked down the human pilot and tore the plane apart.
But now, just as one is about F-
16 fighter, the machine is moving forward: \"The plane is amazing.
In fact, it is better than its pilot in a critical way: it can be manipulated so quickly and hard that its pilot loses consciousness.
An official at DARPA noted, \"humanity is becoming the weakest link in the defense system due to new technologies.
\"As artificial intelligence continues to improve, machines may soon overcome the main comparative advantage of humans today, which is the mushy gray spots in our skulls.
This is not just a matter of computing power.
Soldiers who learn French or gun laws cannot easily pass on this knowledge to other soldiers.
Computers have a faster learning curve.
Not only do they speak the same language, but they can connect directly to each other through wires or networks, which means they have the intelligence to share.
The ability to calculate and operate at digital speed is another advantage of the robot.
For example, humans can only react to incoming gunfire by covering in the last second.
But anti-rocket mortar (CRAM)
The system used radar to detect incoming rocket and mortar shells, and automatically guided its square 20mm tube gun to shoot them quickly, achieving 70% shots. Decline in capacity.
More than 20 CRAMs--
Affectionately called R2-
After the little robots in Star Wars, they\'re like--
Currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Some people think that the speed of such weapons means that they are just the beginning.
An army colonel said: \"The future trend will be for robots to react to robot attacks, especially when operating at technical speeds. . .
Humans will not have any time as the cycle gets shorter and shorter.
\"* Every department of the US armed forces has an ambitious robotics program.
On the ground, a variety of military robot projects should be gathered together in the combat system of the next $230 billion (FCS)
Military robotics expert Robert finkerstein described the project as \"the biggest weapon purchase in history \". . .
At least in this part of the Galaxy.
\"FCS covers everything from replacing thousands of armored vehicles with a new generation of manned and unmanned vehicles, to writing about 34 million lines of software code for a computer network that connects them together.
The army believes that by 2015 it will be able to restructure many of its forces into a new FCS brigade.
The brigades will present a revolutionary new model of staffing and organization of military forces.
The number of driverless cars is expected to exceed that of manned vehicles (
Ratio between 330 and 300)
And will be equipped with its own automated air force, with more than 100 unmanned aircraft under the control of the brigade\'s soldiers.
The size of the plane will go from a small unit suitable for a soldier\'s backpack to a 23-foot-
At sea, the Navy is introducing or developing a variety of exotic technologies, including the search for mines or the new \"unmanned underwater vehicle\" that acts as a small Marine Corps, to launch from a manned submarine in order to hunt down the enemy.
The Navy has tested machine guns. -
Robotic speedboats that patrol ports or hunt down pirates (
Used one in the Persian Gulf to scare local fishermen)
As well as various robotic aircraft and helicopters that take off from surface ships or launch from submarines.
In the air, the next generation of driverless cars will also be a mix of upgraded existing systems, convertible manned cars and brandsnew designs.
Boeing X-and other \"unmanned aerial systems\"
45 and Northrop Grumman X
47. The center of the United States. S.
Military plan for drones
Described as looking the most like \"a set of works in the TV show\" Battlestar kaladega \", the drone was designed to take over the final human pilot character, fighter athlete.
The prototype of the drone has shown some impressive capabilities, especially stealth, so it is suitable for the most dangerous characters.
They fired precise missiles that \"passed\" between different remote human operators 900 miles apart, and in a war game they independently detected unexpected threats (
Missiles that \"suddenly appear\" seem to be everywhere)
They then did their own combat damage assessment.
The Navy plans to test its unmanned aircraft on an aircraft carrier in the next three years, and the Air Force has brought its project into the top world of \"black\"
With the new prototype of aerial drones landing on the battlefield, the trend will be to push the size extremes in two directions.
Some prototypes of drones have wings as long as football fields.
Powered by solar and hydrogen, they are designed to stay in the air for a few days or even weeks as mobile spy satellites or air gas stations.
The other extreme is what technology reporter Noah shatterman called \"itty-bitty, teeny-weeny UAVs.
\"The military\'s estimate of the possibility of a micro-aircraft is stated by a contract signed by DARPA in 2006.
It looks for an insect.
Drones weighing less than 10 grams (
About the third ounce per ounce)
, Less than 7.
5 centimeters long with a speed of 10 m per second and a range of 1,000 m can hover for at least one minute.
As our machines become smaller and smaller, they will enter the field of nanotechnology, which was once only theoretical.
A major development in this area took place in 2007, when David Leigh, a researcher at the University of Edinburgh, revealed that he had created a \"nano-machine\" consisting of a single molecule.
When asked to describe the importance of his findings to normal people, Leigh said it was difficult to predict.
\"When it\'s a bit like a stone --
\"The older man made his wheel and asked him to predict the highway,\" he said . \".
* Despite the enthusiasm of the military community for the next generation of driverless vehicles, ships and aircraft, one is often reluctant to talk about an issue.
This is equivalent to Voldemort in Harry Potter, which is an issue that cannot be discussed.
When we are equipped with smarter, more capable and more autonomous robots, what happens to the role of human beings in war?
When this problem arises, both experts and military personnel tend to change the topic or speak absolutely.
\"People always want humanity to be involved,\" said Elliott Cohen, a prominent military expert at John Hopkins University, who served in the State Department under President George w. Bush. Bush.
An air force captain also wrote in his service professional magazine, \"in some cases, it is possible to rescue the man from the injury.
Does this mean that there is no longer one in the loop? No.
Does this mean that brave men and women will no longer face death in battle? No.
Brave souls always need to throw their bodies into the sky.
\"All the rhetoric ignores the reality that long before robots enter the battlefield, humans begin to step out of the\" cycle \".
Back in World War II, Norden bombsight calculated the height, speed, and trajectory, which was too complicated for a person to decide when to drop a bomb.
In the Persian Gulf War, Captain Doug Frith, the radar navigator, can write down from his B-
52: \"The Navigation Computer opened the bomb hatch and threw the weapon into the dark.
\"In the Navy, since the introduction of the Aegis computer system in the 1980 s, the trend of computer autonomy has taken shape.
The system is designed to defend against naval ships from missiles and aircraft attacks, and it operates in four modes, from the \"half
Automatically, \"in this case, humans, together with the system, judge when to shoot and what to shoot to\" casualties \",\" in this system, all people work like dead, according to its calculation, it is best to avoid the collision of ships.
Humans can go beyond the Aegis shield system in any one mode, but experience has shown that because people are hesitant to use this ability, it is usually not important.
Sometimes the consequences are tragic.
In July 3, 1988, one of the most spectacular failures in the Persian Gulf during a US patrol missionS. S. Vincennes.
The ship is nicknamed \"Robo-
Cruisers, \"because it carries the new Aegis shield radar system, and because its captain is known for being too aggressive.
On the same day, Vincennes\'s radar found an overhead passenger plane, Air Iran Flight 655.
The plane\'s course and speed are consistent, and radar and radio signals are being sent to show that it is civilian.
However, the automatic Aegis shield system was designed to manage the battle against Soviet bombers in the open North Atlantic, rather than to deal with the skies that were packed with civilian aircraft like the Bay Area.
The computer system registers an icon on the screen to make the plane look like an Iranian F-14 fighter (
Half the size of the plane
Thus become the \"enemy of assumption\"
\"Although the data tells the crew that the plane is not a fighter, they trust the computer more.
The shield is in half.
Automatic mode, giving it the least autonomy, but none of the 18 sailors in command and none of the military officers challenged the wisdom of the computer.
They authorized it to fire. (
They even have the right to do so without the permission of more senior officers of the fleet, just as their counterparts on any other ship must, this in itself is the result of the Navy\'s greater confidence in the Aegis shield than human beings.
No boat for it. )
Only after that fact did the crew realize that they accidentally shot down a passenger plane, killing all 290 passengers and crew members, including 66 children.
The tragedy of Flight 655 is not an isolated incident.
In fact, the same situation repeated a few years ago, when the United StatesS.
The Patriot missile accidentally shot down two Allied planes during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The Patriot system classified the ship as an Iraqi rocket.
It takes only a few seconds to make a decision.
So machine judgment is better than any human decision.
In both cases, the manpower in the \"loop\" is actually just the veto power, even the power that military personnel are not willing to use for faster people (
And the advantages they think)
The judgment of the computer.
The point is not that the machine is taking over, matrix-
Style, but with the expansion of the authority and autonomy of the machine, let the human decision in the war \"loop\" means what is being redefined.
Bring countless pressures to war
Robots are becoming more and more autonomous.
The first is to promote the manufacture of more capable and intelligent robots.
But as Robert Epstein, a psychologist and artificial intelligence expert, pointed out,in paradox.
Ironically, the military hopes [a robot]
Be able to learn, react, etc.
In order for it to do its mission well.
But they don\'t want it to be as creative as they do with soldiers.
But how do you limit them once you reach a space that is truly capable?
I honestly don\'t think we can.
\"A simple military expediency has also expanded the cycle.
In order to save anyone from the use of a driverless system, one operator must be able to \"supervise \"(
Relative to control)
For example, the long term of the Army
The Future Combat System Plan requires two people to sit on the same console and jointly supervise a team of 10 land robots.
In this case, humans delegate tasks to increasingly autonomous robots, but robots still need human permission to launch weapons.
There are many reasons, however, to believe that such an arrangement would prove unworkable.
Researchers found it difficult for humans to control multiple units at the same time (
Imagine playing five different video games at once).
Even if human operators control two drones at a time, the performance level has dropped by an average of 50%.
As a NATO study concluded, the goal of getting an operator to control multiple cars \"is at best very ambitious at the moment and the worst is impossible to achieve.
\"This is a system that does not shoot or is not fired.
As a Pentagon
The funded report states, \"even if the tactical commander knows the location of all his troops, the battle is so fluid and fast-paced that it is difficult to control them.
\"So we made an effort to give the machine more autonomy.
There is also the fact that an enemy is involved.
If the robot does not fire unless authorized by the remote operator, then the enemy only needs to interrupt the communication.
The officers countered that while they did not like the idea of bringing humans out of the loop, there must be an exception to the backup plan when communication breaks and the robot \"fights the blind.
So there is another exception.
There are combat situations even if the communication link is not interrupted, and even if the enemy is not working at digital speed, the human operator does not have enough time to react.
For example, some robot manufacturers have added \"anti-sniper\" capabilities to their machines, enabling them to automatically track and target any enemy shooting with a laser.
But when humans decide whether to fight back or not, those precious seconds can get the enemy away. As one U. S.
Officers observed that there was no technology to prevent a man from manipulating a machine to shoot something more deadly than light.
\"If you can hit it automatically with a laser range, you can hit it with a bullet.
\"This creates a strong argument for another exception to the rule that humans must always be in the\" loop \", that is, to give the robot its own ability to fight back.
This autonomy is generally considered to be more delicious than other types.
\"People feel a little different about the counter-strike than the strike,\" Noah shattman noted . \".
As Gordon Johnson of the Army\'s Joint Forces Command explained, this autonomy was quickly considered not only logical, but very attractive.
\"Anyone who shoots our troops will die.
He may have died before he laid down his arms and ran away.
Now, these cowards in Baghdad have to pay with blood and internal organs every time they shoot at one of our fellow citizens.
The cost of poker has risen sharply.
Enemies, will they give up blood and internal organs to kill the machine?
I don\'t think so.
Each exception, however, pushes an exception farther and farther from the absolute \"never\", but down a slippery slope.
At each step, once the robot \"has established a reliable record in finding the right targets and using weapons correctly,\" said John treparker, executive editor of Air Force Magazine, the machine is trustworthy.
\"The reality is that, as the retired Army colonel Thomas Adams pointed out, the human position\" in the loop \"has become\" the supervisor of service in failure --
Security capacity in the event of a system failure.
\"Even so, he believes that the speed, confusion and information overload of modern society --
The day of war will soon shift the whole process beyond \"Human space.
\"He describes how the weapons of the future will be\" too fast, too small, too much, and will create an environment that is too complex for humans to command.
As Adams concluded, the new technology \"is rapidly taking us to a place where we may not want to go but may not be able to avoid.
\"Ironically, for all the claims made by military, political and scientific leaders that\" mankind will always be in the loop \", as early as 2004 in the United StatesS.
The army is conducting research to demonstrate the advantages of armed ground robots equipped with \"fast\"draw response.
\"Similarly, a 2006 study by the Defense Security Working Group of the defense minister\'s office, discussing how to destroy hostile weapons systems by allowing\" armed autonomous systems \"and\" firing, but suspicion is not allowed to be a fighter \"to ease concerns about potential killer robots.
\"That is, they can shoot at tanks and jeeps, not at people inside the car.
Perhaps the most telling thing is a report drafted by the Joint Forces Command in 2005, which shows that autonomous robots on the battlefield will become the norm in 20 years.
Given the official statement, its title is a bit interesting, and it is often heard: The unmanned effect: Taking humans away from the loop.
So while an article calls it \"all verbal services are putting a person in a loop\", autonomous armed robots are about to go to war.
They just make too much sense to important people.
** As robots take on more and more roles, humans are getting out of the loop, and there are doubts about whether human fighters will eventually be eliminated.
A retired Air Force officer described a visit to his 2007 graduating class at the Air Force Academy, saying, \"People are very worried that they will never be able to fly in combat.
\"The most controversial role of robots in the future will be to replace human purrs in the field.
In 2004, DARPA researchers surveyed a groupS.
Military officials and robot scientists have taken over the role they believe robots will take over in the near future.
The officers predicted that the anti-Thunder operation would be carried out first, followed by reconnaissance, forward observation, logistics, and then Infantry.
Oddly enough, the roles they mentioned last include air defense, driving or driving vehicles, and food services --
Every one has been automated.
On average, the role of special forces is considered the most unlikely to be awarded to robots.
Soldiers predict that humanoid robots will start using an average of 2025 years for infantry combat characters.
Their answers are not very different from those of scientists, and they give a 2020 prediction.
It is clear that these figures only reflect the opinions of those in the survey and may prove to be far from enough.
Robert Finkelstein, a senior engineer, is now in charge of robotics.
Who helped carry out the survey and thought the forecasts were very optimistic until \"2035 [that]
We will have robots that are as capable as human soldiers on the battlefield.
\"But the broader point is that many experts are starting to think about a world where robots will replace the purring in this field before many of us pay off our mortgages. However, as H. R.
Bart Everett, the pioneer of naval robotics, explained that,
Replacing humans on a large scale in combat is unlikely to happen soon.
On the contrary, the use of robots by humans in war will \"evolve into more ways of Teamwork \".
\"His project, the Center for Space and Naval Warfare Systems, has partnered with the Office of Naval Research to support the activation of the concept of\" assistant combatants \"over the next 10 to 20 years.
Humans and robots will be integrated into a team that shares information and coordinates actions for common goals.
Everett said, \"I firmly believe that intelligent mobile robots will eventually acquire enough capabilities to be accepted by fighters as equal partners of mankind --
The robot team, like a police dog and its handler.
\"The Pentagon\'s 2006 tender to the robot industry captures this vision:\" The challenge is to create a system, show multiple robots using one or more humans in highly restricted tactical maneuvers. . .
An example of this operation is throughthe-
Door procedures frequently used by police and soldiers to enter urban residences. . . [in which]
One kick, then pull back, so that the other can move lower into the left, then the other high into the right, and so on.
In this project, the team will consist of a robot platform to work with one or more human teammates as a unity unit. \"Another U. S. military--
The funded project envisions the creation of a \"game book\" for tactical action by robots\"human team.
Like a football quarterback, human soldiers would call robots \"games\", but just like players on the field, robots are free to change what they do if things change.
So the military does not want to replace all soldiers with robots soon, but rather see a process of integrating into a force, as the Joint Forces Command predicted in its 2025 plans, \"mainly robots.
Personal robots will have a certain degree of autonomy-
Adjustable autonomy or supervision of autonomy or full autonomy within the scope of the mission, \"but it is important to note that the autonomy of any human soldier in these forces will also be limited by their orders and rules
If the future is a robot teammate and a member of the robot wingman, many scientists think it is important for both things, both of which are human nature.
The first is good communication.
On 2004, Lockheed tested a drone in response to a simple voice order.
Pilots flying on another plane will give the drone a wide range of tasks, such as going to a certain area to shoot a specific building, and the plane will perform.
As explained in a report, \"the next war can be carried out in part by an unmanned aircraft, which responds to verbal orders in simple English and then comes up with its own ideas on how to do the job.
\"The robot\'s reaction may even be the human voice. WT-
6 is a robot in Japan. It has a human being.
Vocal System, produced by artificial tongue, lips, teeth, vocal cords, lungs and soft jaws made of polymer.
If robots and human soldiers work together, they need to have confidence in each other.
It sounds interesting to say the relationship between a bucket of bolts and humans, but Idaho National Laboratory scientist David Brumer actually specializes in how humans and robots work together.
\"Trust,\" he said without irony, \"is a huge problem for the performance of the robot.
\"Trust is to have a proper understanding of each other\'s abilities, and it is right to expect what you will do to each other.
One of the more interesting findings of Bruemmer is that novices tend to make the most of robotic systems.
The autonomy of their most \"trust\" robots and the \"let [the robot]do its job.
Bruemmer predicts that over time, robots may have built-in \"dynamic autonomy\" with the number of \"belts, they get less decisions than their human teammates experience and level of trust. ***Lawrence J.
Korb is one of the Presidents of Washington\'s defense policy agency.
Former Navy flying officer, served as assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration.
Now he is a senior researcher at the Center for American Progress, a left wing.
Colb witnessed the coming and going of the president\'s government and their war.
As the author of 20 books and more than 100 articles, and a veteran of thousands of TV news,
He also helped shape the understanding of these wars in American news media and the public.
On 2007, I asked him, in the defense community in Washington, what was the most important question he thought?
He replied: \"Robots and all these things that are driverless.
What is the effect?
Will it make war more likely?
\"Korb is a great supporter of the driverless system for the simple reason:\" They saved lives.
\"But he is concerned that these effects have an impact not only on the foreign public and the media, but also on the perception and psychology of war at home.
As more and more driverless systems are being used, he sees a change in both ways, which he fears will make war more likely.
\"Robots\" will further cut off ties between the Army and Society.
As long as people think there is no cost to use force, they are more likely to support the use of force.
\"What is even more worrying is that a new kind of peeping behavior brought about by emerging technologies will make the public more vulnerable to attempts to market the ease of potential war.
\"There will be more marketing for war.
More \"shock\" and \"we\" discuss cost issues.
\"Korb is equally disturbed by how these technologies will affect how political leaders view war and its costs.
It will make people think that war is easy.
Do you remember all the statements about \"karkwalker\" in Iraq? How will the Afghan model apply?
All the thought needed to win a war is \'three people and a Satellite Phone \'?
Their idea is that if they can make the military as technically dominant as other armies, we can solve these problems.
Mr Corb believes Washington\'s political stance has been severely hit by Iraq.
But he is concerned about the next generation of policymakers.
Technology like the driverless system can be tempting and can fuel over-self-confidence and lead the country into a war they are not ready.
\"Inexperienced leaders tend to forget the other side because it can adapt.
They tend to think that each other is static and fall into a technical trap.
\"We will have more Kosovo people and fewer Iraqis,\" Korb said of how he summed up where he thought we were going.
That said, he predicted more punitive interventions, such as the Kosovo attack in 1999 without ground forces, and a decrease in operations such as the invasion of Iraq.
As the driverless system becomes more common, the likelihood of our use of force will also increase, but it will also be seen that anything that puts the human army at risk has been raised.
Korb envisions a future in which the United States is willing to fight, but only from a distance, and it is more willing to punish by war, but unwilling to face the cost of war.
Permanent Peace of Kant (1795)
The idea that democracies are superior to all other forms of government is first expressed, because they are inherently more peaceful and less aggressive.
This statement of \"Democratic Peace (
From Bill Clinton to George w. Bush, the presidents of all parties have quoted this sentence. Bush)
Is based on the belief established by a democratic country.
The link between their foreign policy and domestic politics is lacking in other government systems.
When people have a common voice in any decision, including whether to go to war or not, they should choose more wisely than an unconstrained King or monarch. Colonel R. D. Hooker Jr.
He is an Iraqi veteran and commander of the Army Airborne Brigade.
As he explained, the people and their army in this area should be linked in two ways.
The first is the direct interest of the public in government policy.
\"War is not just about strategy and policy, because it is from the heart and the individual. . .
Its victory and failure, joy and sorrow, climax and depression are basically expressed through a feeling of collective excitement or despair.
For the combatants, war means the prospect of death or injury, and it means the loss of friends and comrades, which is equally tragic.
\"Citizens, because it is their blood that will be invested by individuals --
The soldiers, as well as the fathers, mothers, uncles and cousins they voted for, joined together to dissuade leaders from taking risks and getting sick abroad
The second link should be indirectly generated through democratic free media, which will expand the impact of these blood investments on the public.
\"Society is an intimate participant [in war]
Similarly, through announcements and statements by political leaders, through the ubiquitous media, as well as the homes of the families and communities in which they live.
Here, the safe return or death of loved ones, magnified thousands of times, resonated strongly in distant places, \"Hook said.
Therefore, the role of the news media in the free system is not only to report the results of the war, just like to report sports events.
Public perception of events on distant battlefields puts pressure on elected leaders.
Too much pressure will lead the elected leaders to try to intervene in the ongoing action, and in the war it\'s a bad idea, like in sports the fans will call for their favorite team.
But, as Korb and Hooker explain, too little public pressure can be worse.
This is equivalent to no one caring about the game or the results of the game.
The war became WNBA.
Many people worry that the ideal of democracy has been surrounded.
S. Troops have been fighting in places like Afghanistan and Iraq for the last eight years, but in addition to being insulted in small bottles of shampoo that are carried with them --
There is no luggage in the United States.
Since the end of the draft, most Americans no longer need to consider whether their husband, wife, son or daughter will be in danger if the army is sent to war.
By contrast, during World War II, more than 16 million men and women served in the military, accounting for about 11% of the population of the United States.
Equivalent to more than 30 million today.
By the beginning of the 21 st century, even the financial costs of the family had shifted.
After September 11, the industry did not need to reinvent the factory, households did not need to ration fuel and food, or even express their confidence in the war effort by buying bonds. (
Instead, tax cuts reduce the burden on Americans, especially the rich. )
When asked what citizens can do to share the risk and sacrifice of soldiers on the battlefield, the commander-in-chief\'s response is to \"go shopping \".
\"As a result, the US public has less investment and connections to its foreign policy than ever before.
With this trend, some worry that robotic technology will cut off the last remaining connection clues.
The driverless system represents a final breakthrough between the public and the army.
No draft, no congressional approval required (
The last official declaration of war was in 1941)
Without taxes and war bonds, it is now known that the risks faced by Americans are mainly American machines, and the threshold of war that has fallen is likely to fall.
Leaders do not need to reach the consensus that is usually needed before the war, or even unite the country behind the efforts.
In turn, the public will truly become a sports fan watching war, rather than a citizen sharing the importance of war.
However, our new technology not only eliminates the risks of humanity, but also records everything they have experienced, thus reshaping the public\'s connection to war.
The war in Iraq is actually the first conflict you can download battle videos from the Internet.
As of 2007, there were more than 7,000 Iraqi combat video clips on YouTube alone.
Most of the videos were taken by drones and unmanned sensors and posted online.
The trend of video war may establish a link between the war front line and the family front line, allowing the public to see what is happening in the battle as never before.
But inevitably, the ability to download the latest robot battle clips to home computers and iPhones has turned war into a form of entertainment.
The soldiers called the footage \"war porn \".
\"Particularly interesting or scary combat footage, such as videos of insurgents being blown up by drones, will be posted on the blog and forwarded to friends, family, like\" watch this!
\"An interesting clip of a nerd dancing in the basement could be an emailmailed around.
A typical loop clip shows people\'s bodies blown into the air by Predator attacks, following the tune of Sugar Ray\'s funky pop song \"I just want to fly.
\"From this perspective, as one security analyst said, war has become\" a global audience movement for those who are not involved in it.
\"More broadly, while video images attract the public in a whole new way, they can fool many viewers into thinking they now have a real picture of what\'s going on in the conflict
The ability to see more and experience less has produced contradictory effects.
It expands the gap between our perception and the reality of war.
Let another sport parallel, which is the difference between watching NBA games on TV and small numbers on the screen, know what it\'s like Kevin Garnett screaming to knock you down and slam your head.
To make matters worse, the video footage seen by civilians does not show the full content of the war, but is just a bland version of the ESPN sports center.
Background, strategy, training, tactics --
They all turn into dunks and smart bombs.
War porn often masks other cruel realities of war.
Most viewers have an instinctive aversion to watching a segment of a target that may be someone they know or a fellow American;
Such clips are usually banned in the United States. S. -Hosting the website.
But a lot of people are more than happy to watch videos of drones ending some anonymous enemy lives, even if it\'s just to see if the machines fighting in Iraq are \"sick\" like the machines in the Transformers movie \", the motivation a student gave me was why he downloaded the clips.
For a much less risky public, the war takes on what analyst Christopher Coker says is \"the fun of spectacular scenes, adding to the fact that it is real to someone, but not real to the audience
\"** This changing relationship makes it not only unlikely that the public will exercise its veto power over its elected leaders.
As Lawrence Kolb observed, they also changed the calculation of the leaders themselves.
The country often goes to war because of over-confidence.
This makes perfect sense;
Few leaders think they will fail and choose to start a conflict.
Historians have found that technology can play an important role in fuelling over-confidence: new weapons and capabilities can create new perceptions and misconceptions about what may happen in war.
Today\'s new technology is especially easy to foster over-confidence.
In the war, they are considered to be more helpful to the injured side than defense, and in addition, they are progressing at an exponential rate.
The difference in research and development in just a few years will result in a huge difference in weapon capabilities.
But this could create a mindset of \"using it or losing it\" because even the best technological advantages can be fleeting (
S. Has reason to worry that 42 countries from Iran and China to Belarus and Pakistan are working on military robots).
Finally, as explained by a robot expert, a vicious circle is formed.
In order for the government to buy new technologies, scientists and companies often exaggerate the value of new technologies, but leaders are more likely to feel risky if they believe in the hype.
James Der Derian is an expert at Brown University in studying the new war model.
He believes that the combination of these factors means that robot technology will \"lower the threshold of violence \".
\"The result is a dangerous mixture: leaders who are not subject to a public veto are now missing, and with the technology that seems to bring spectacular results, almost no one is killed.
This is a very tempting beer for decision makers.
\"If someone thinks that these new technologies will hurt us and them less, then we are more likely to reach them as early as possible, rather than spending weeks and months on diplomacy.
When faced with a dispute or crisis, decision-makers often see the use of force as a \"last resort \".
\"The driverless system is now likely to help this option go up, and every step up is more likely to trigger a war.
This brings us back to the Korb scene of \"more Kosovo people, fewer Iraqis.
\"While Avoiding mistakes in Iraq certainly sounds like a positive outcome, there will be no problem with the other side of the trade-off.
Some people recall that 1990 is not a quiet day.
Lowering the threshold allows for more unmanned attacks from far away, which will lead to \"cruise missile diplomacy\" similar to that period \".
Such a strategy may reduce the number of troops stationed on the ground, but, as the 1998 strikes against al-Qaida camps in Sudan and Afghanistan and the 1999 Kosovo war have shown, maybe now drone strikes in Pakistan, it produces military operations without any real sense of commitment, whip lash-
At most, you can only get out of an incomplete victory. As one U. S.
According to the Army report, such actions \"feel good at the moment but have little effect \".
\"They got the country involved in a problem, but they didn\'t solve it.
To make matters worse, Korb could be wrong, and this dynamic could produce more Iraq.
This is the temptation of a simple pre-emptive action to first help the United States get into trouble in Iraq.
As one robot scientist said when it comes to the new technology he is developing, \"the military thinks it will enable them to nip things in the bud and deal with the bad guys earlier and more easily, instead of having to enter a big-ass war.
But the most likely thing to happen is that we\'re going to throw a bunch of high tech at the usual urban guerrillas. . .
It will stop the trend [of U. S. casualties]
But it won\'t give us some asymmetric advantages.
So robots can bring dark irony.
By reducing the labor costs of war, they may induce us into more wars.
* Whether it\'s watching war from a distance or using robots instead of other citizens to hurt others, robots offer the public and their leaders the temptation of a risk-free War.
All the potential benefits of the war will come without paying the price, even a little entertainment.
This is an exciting temptation, not just for the evil warmongers.
The whole world has witnessed the horrors of Bosnia, Rwanda and the Congo, but nothing has been done, mainly because the public is not knowledgeable or caring enough and it seems too costly to think of doing what is truly effective
Replacing troops with an unmanned system may change the calculation method.
In fact, imagine that all genocide and crimes against humanity can end as long as the barriers to war are reduced.
Tired of the dictator slaughtering his people?
When his army is shot down, send your advanced technology and watch it on YouTube.
War, however, has never been so simple.
They are complex, chaotic and unpredictable.
Even if the driverless system is increasingly replacing humans, that will be the case.
But let\'s imagine that this fantasy of cheap and cost-free self-driving war will come true, and we can use robots to stop bad guys from doing bad things, without retreating, without muscles, no fuss.
Even such a prospect should stop us.
By cutting off the already fragile link between the public and national foreign policy, the pain-
Free wars distort the entire concept of democratic processes and citizenship because they are related to war.
When a citizen has no sense of sacrifice, or even no prospect of sacrifice, the decision to go to war, like any other policy decision, is weighed against the same calculus used to determine whether to raise bridge tolls.
You will not be widely watched and debated for the most important decisions the government can make, but will be generally indifferent.
When technology turns war into something that is only for the sake of being looked at, rather than weighing it very seriously, the checks and balances that support democracy will fall halfway.
This is likely to mean the end of any idea of democratic peace that could make our foreign countries --
In addition to policy decisions.
Such a war without a price would even undermine the morality of a \"good\" war.
When a country decides to break things in a foreign country, it is not just decided to break things.
As one philosopher said, the decision itself is \"a reflection of the moral character of the society \".
\"Without public debate and support, without the danger of the Army, the decision to go to war becomes the act of a nation that doesn\'t care.
Even if the act of sending robots by the state is justified, such as stopping genocide, a war without risk and sacrifice is only a selfish act of charity.
On the one hand to pay in high-tech of wealth on the other hand but no.
The only message of a country\'s \"moral character\" is that only it has the right to stop bad things, but only at the time and place it chooses, and most importantly, only when the cost is low enough.
For robots, the cost of human beings is zero compared to those lives that may be saved.
This does not mean that action should not be taken by the state.
But when it does so, it must realize that even the war of justice becomes a drill to play God from a distance, and that no one\'s weapons replace Thunder.
From wired to warW. Singer.
Copyright 2009 by P. W. Singer.
Penguin Publishing House.
Licensed by the copyright owner.
All rights reserved.