Now, that we have robots to do the fighting, is war more likely?

Now, that we have robots to do the fighting, is war more likely?

Excerpted from “The UK Approach to Unmanned Aircraft Systems” Joint Doctrine Note 2/11 (JDN 2/11), dated 30 March 2011, is promulgated as directed by the Chiefs of Staff, British Ministry of Defence
[SIZE="+2"]I[/SIZE]f we remove the risk of loss from the decision-makers’ calculations when considering crisis management options, do we make the use of armed force more attractive? Will decision-makers resort to war as a policy option far sooner than previously? Clausewitz himself suggests that it is policy that prevents the escalation of the brutality of war to its absolute form via a diabolical escalatory feedback loop (15) – one of the contributory factors in controlling and limiting aggressive policy is the risk to one’s own forces. It is essential that, before unmanned systems become ubiquitous (if it is not already too late) that we consider this issue and ensure that, by removing some of the horror, or at least keeping it at a distance, that we do not risk losing our controlling humanity and make war more likely. For example, the recent extensive use of unmanned aircraft over Pakistan and Yemen may already herald a new era. …

Click to expand...

See also: The Terminators: drone strikes prompt MoD to ponder ethics of killer robots | World news | The Guardian
See also: The high cost of cheap war - David Sirota - Salon.com

Robots make going to war and conducting a war easier but they are not the only contributing factor which makes going to war easier. Having a professional army is another; a conscripted army means that political leaders must justify the risks to life and limb — with a professional army, well, it can be said, “They volunteered.”

Finally, keeping the consequences of war day after day off the evening news (does any one younger than eighty even watch the evening news these days) prevents social upset. The names and the faces of the fallen are all but ignored as the coffins disappear into the ground without hardly a whisper.

War used to be hell, but, in this age, three (or really four) wars aren't hardly noticeable.

Chappy, I've got to say this is the first thing I've seen you say on this forum that makes at least some amount of sense. Props to you.

I dont think so for one reason... the media.

No. Technology, if anything, seems to have made war less likely. Probably because, the better we humans become at killing each other, the less we seek to escalate things to the point where killing each other is necessary.

In a world of weapons of mass destruction, how much are killing robots really worth, anyway?

I lean towards Yes.

The more depersonalized war is, the less terrible it seems to the public. The less terrible it seems, the greater the propensity to use such forces.

I think to the public... no. If people are dieing, there will always be pictures and videos of the carnage, the media will still be there to influence the emotional part of war to make everyone realize the cost of it.

But war generals and people who call the shots... yes, since they don't have as much of their own human lives their responsible for, so their will be more risky expeditions being taken place... more cowboy'ing with robots. But that could be a good thing actually, it would end wars quicker because battles would happen without the running back and forth and caution. A 3 week expedition could turn into a 3-day one.

Krhazy said:

No. Technology, if anything, seems to have made war less likely. Probably because, the better we humans become at killing each other, the less we seek to escalate things to the point where killing each other is necessary.

In a world of weapons of mass destruction, how much are killing robots really worth, anyway?

Click to expand...

You could ask the same question about ground troops.... how much is an infantryman worth in an age of nuclear weapons?

The answer is: he's worth his weight in silver, at least. We've found that no matter how sophisticated our smart bombs, cruise missles, and drone aircraft are, at some point you have to send in the infantry to secure the ground, quash any remaining opposition, and provide security for the area.

WMD's are like a sledgehammer: powerful, but not suited to every task. Not suited to hardly any tasks really, except as a last-line deterrent against invasion or someone else's WMD.

When we located Osama, we didn't send him a 20KT tac nuke via cruise missle... we sent in elite combat troops.

You need to study up a bit on the differences between Total War and Limited War in the modern era, methinks.

I expect we'll be seeing more unmanned aircraft, followed by unmanned tanks and then small "infantry robots", in the next few decades, and that they will prove very useful indeed to those who master this technology quickly.

celticwar17 said:

I think to the public... no. If people are dieing, there will always be pictures and videos of the carnage, the media will still be there to influence the emotional part of war to make everyone realize the cost of it.

But war generals and people who call the shots... yes, since they don't have as much of their own human lives their responsible for, so their will be more risky expeditions being taken place... more cowboy'ing with robots. But that could be a good thing actually, it would end wars quicker because battles would happen without the running back and forth and caution. A 3 week expedition could turn into a 3-day one.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree it does depend on what type of war is being waged. Ground troops dying is different from Predator/Reaper drones being shot down. It depends on the type of engagement. I agree this probably won't make large-scale ground wars more likely.

The desire to be at war makes war more likely. On the whole, there are less wars now than there ever have been in history.

Robots are more expensive than soldiers, so there is also that angle.

Goshin said:

You could ask the same question about ground troops.... how much is an infantryman worth in an age of nuclear weapons?

The answer is: he's worth his weight in silver, at least. We've found that no matter how sophisticated our smart bombs, cruise missles, and drone aircraft are, at some point you have to send in the infantry to secure the ground, quash any remaining opposition, and provide security for the area.

WMD's are like a sledgehammer: powerful, but not suited to every task. Not suited to hardly any tasks really, except as a last-line deterrent against invasion or someone else's WMD.

When we located Osama, we didn't send him a 20KT tac nuke via cruise missle... we sent in elite combat troops.

You need to study up a bit on the differences between Total War and Limited War in the modern era, methinks.

I expect we'll be seeing more unmanned aircraft, followed by unmanned tanks and then small "infantry robots", in the next few decades, and that they will prove very useful indeed to those who master this technology quickly.

Click to expand...

What Goshin said.

We have Americans fighting and dying in three (strike that, four) wars daily and only four members have the integrity to put their names on a line in this poll. Shameful.

Goshin said:

You could ask the same question about ground troops.... how much is an infantryman worth in an age of nuclear weapons?

The answer is: he's worth his weight in silver, at least. We've found that no matter how sophisticated our smart bombs, cruise missles, and drone aircraft are, at some point you have to send in the infantry to secure the ground, quash any remaining opposition, and provide security for the area.

WMD's are like a sledgehammer: powerful, but not suited to every task. Not suited to hardly any tasks really, except as a last-line deterrent against invasion or someone else's WMD.

When we located Osama, we didn't send him a 20KT tac nuke via cruise missle... we sent in elite combat troops.

You need to study up a bit on the differences between Total War and Limited War in the modern era, methinks.

I expect we'll be seeing more unmanned aircraft, followed by unmanned tanks and then small "infantry robots", in the next few decades, and that they will prove very useful indeed to those who master this technology quickly.

Click to expand...

Yes, but will it make war more likely? WMDs aren't suitable for every purpose, but they certainly are a deterrent in almost all situations.

I don't dispute the general usefulness of such technologies when it actually comes to engagement.

Chappy said:

We have Americans fighting and dying in three (strike that, four) wars daily and only four members have the integrity to put their names on a line in this poll. Shameful.

Click to expand...

Four? If you're counting Pakistan, it's part of the Afghan conflict. We are at war IN Pakistan, not WITH Pakistan.

Chappy said:

We have Americans fighting and dying in three (strike that, four) wars daily and only four members have the integrity to put their names on a line in this poll. Shameful.

Click to expand...

WTF does the one have to do with the other? Or are you just annoyed more people aren't voting in the poll? Seriously, that was a silly statement.

I dont see the presence of 'robot's' making wars more likely.

StillBallin75 said:

Four? If you're counting Pakistan, it's part of the Afghan conflict. We are at war IN Pakistan, not WITH Pakistan.

Click to expand...

Agree to disagree.

Goshin said:

WTF does the one have to do with the other? Or are you just annoyed more people aren't voting in the poll? Seriously, that was a silly statement.

Click to expand...

How many wars does America have to conduct before you conclude that the bar to entering a war has become absurdly low?

Krhazy said:

Yes, but will it make war more likely? WMDs aren't suitable for every purpose, but they certainly are a deterrent in almost all situations.

I don't dispute the general usefulness of such technologies when it actually comes to engagement.

Click to expand...

Will it make war more likely? Well to be honest I'm not sure.

I don't think robots will entirely or even largely replace human soldiers and sailors and airmen in the coming century at least. I think that only a few of the most advanced nations will actually deploy this technology in large quantities within the next two or three decades (USA, UK, a few others perhaps). While robots will reduce casualties for our side to a significant degree in the next 15-30 years, as they will be used to do the most dangerous tasks, they won't eliminate casualties entirely... and the media has demonstrated that they are perfectly capable of making modest numbers of casualties sound like genocide.

Now, in one sense, the use of unmanned combat aircraft could make war more appealing. Taking out an enemy's air force and air defenses is a necessary first step before engaging in major attacks on surface targets. Achieving full air superiority is somewhat dangerous... we do tend to lose a few expensive aircraft and expensively-trained pilots in such an op. When we can do so more cheaply and with less risk to valuable pilots and more-expensive-manned-aircraft, it might increase the temptation a bit.

On the whole though, I don't see the use of combat drones and "robots" (bit of a misnomer as they're really remote-controlled for the most part) as making a major change in the feasibility or appeal of war any time in the next 30 years.

Chappy said:

How many wars does America have to conduct before you conclude that the bar to entering a war has become absurdly low?

Click to expand...

Okay. That's not the question the poll asks... but I can see where you might consider it a related question.

A full dissertation on all my thoughts about Afganistan and Iraq would take up a lot of bandwidth. Suffice it to say I still hope both wars will prove to be worthwhile in the long run, in terms of stablizing the M.E. to some degree... but the jury will still be out on that for a good many years yet. We'll see. We have a legitmate national security intrest in the region, because we get a lot of oil from the mideast. Therefore it is in our intrests to keep that boiling pot from boiling over. It was also necessary that the world see that when we are hit, as in 9-11, that our response will be devastating to those who hide or harbor or support our enemies (Afganistan).

Iraq was possibly less necessary, but removing Saddam and his regime removed an ambitious tyrant who would have liked to rule the whole M.E. It will be 10-20 years before we know if this really worked long-term, but at this point I think it looks more like this was a good call, if a difficult one.

As for Libya, I'm not sure whether we really needed to stick our nose in that one or not. If we ARE, we ought to do it right and go take Mohamar out immediately... if we're going to dick around I'd prefer we leave it alone.

At various times in our history I think we've been too quick to enter into war... at other times, almost too slow and too late. In recent decades we've maybe been a little quicker than usual to draw the sword, but the results have hardly been catastophic for us so I'm not as concerned about it as you seem to be.

Did that answer your question?

Goshin said:

… Did that answer your question?

Click to expand...

No, but, I respect the effort. Take a moment and examine the OP. The British Ministry of Defence is asking important ethical and political-military questions about the nature of conflict now and in the future.

My sense is that what they are addressing is an ‘inevitable’ pathway to ever more sophisticated fighting machines, robots, which, if we were ever to enter conflict with a similarly technologically capable society (e.g., China) would escalate to ever more advanced automatons and beyond: Terminators; it would be a race to our own destruction.

We can take comfort that today's robots are human-guided, but, for how long? Each conflict we enter into becomes a little easier because the casualties of war just get buried in the local dump instead of arriving on a regular schedule at Dover Air Force base.

Jeeze, man, do a little research before you spout off...

They they are not robots. The are remotely controlled bombers by pilots, safe and sound, hundreds of miles away, who have no idea who they are killing, only shadowy one dimension images.

ricksfolly

Temporal said:

The desire to be at war makes war more likely. On the whole, there are less wars now than there ever have been in history.

Robots are more expensive than soldiers, so there is also that angle.

Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence that this is actually the case?

ricksfolly said:

… They they are not robots. …

Click to expand...

Tell that to the British Ministry of Defence which analyzed the broad direction of the current technology trends. The point is the next generation and each generation thereafter will require less and less human intervention.

Today unmanned aircraft can take off and land themselves. Tomorrow, they can isolate and aim at their targets. And, the day after that, what will they need to fulfill their missions? Not humans, it seems likely.

They will not be conventional wars, essentially policing efforts at the edge of empires :shrug: