The Drone War

One of sci-fi's most enduring prophesies is finally coming to pass -- the Drone War. Visionaries from Wells to Orwell to Lucas have long predicted that warring surrogate machines would someday take the humans' place in a new kind of conflict with enormous political implications as military technology evolves. Battles by machines are entirely different -- socially, politically and culturally -- from anything in the history of warfare, as we are seeing in Afghanistan.

There are plenty of human casualties in the Afghan conflict -- though few among Americans -- but the fight seems especially significant in terms of technology and military conflict.

The Predator spy plane and other unmanned drones and gunships (along with satellites, thermal imaging devices, X-ray scanners, etc.) not only search for the enemy, but fire guided missiles, drop powerful oxygen-sucking hyperbaric bombs, and guide bomb strikes from afar. There is no war in recent human history that involved so few humans, at least on one side of the conflict. The most staggering statistic out of Afghanistan might be that the first American combat casualty died nearly three months into the "war."

Before Afghanistan, conventional military wisdom held that a war can't be won without substantial numbers of ground troops. Even as the Afghanistan campaign began, pundits flooded cable talk shows asserting that air power alone wasn't enough, that there would be substantial human sacrifice. Both Desert Storm in Kuwait and Iraq and the Kosovo conflicts involved the growing used of so-called "smart" laser-guided weaponry, deployed with varying degrees of reliability. But those conflicts also involved either the use of enormous numbers of soldiers on the ground and were controversial in terms of the bomb's precision and effectiveness.

The Afghanistan campaign is a very different kind of fight. Early reports suggest the civilian casualties may be lower than in any other large-scale military operation in modern history. Although dangerous and complex for the military on the scene, it's hard to imagine a conflict more remote to the majority of Americans, asked to go about their business as usual.

Orwell's "Drone Wars" come very much to mind here. So does Sir Arthur Clarke's machine warfare and AI military stories. A handful of human soldiers guide and direct the increasingly sophisticated technological arsenal that has devastated the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda networks with stunningly few U.S. military casualties and American civilian casualties beyond September 11 and the anthrax attacks. The Taliban and their terrorist friends seem to have been totally unprepared for this variety of war, such a stark contrast to the Soviet's ill-fated invasion of Afghanistan just a decade ago.

It seems only a matter of time before other countries developed their own surrogate weaponry, and the idea of the high-tech Drone War -- machines warring with one another -- moves to the next level.

Winston Churchill repeatedly asked his countrymen for brutal sacrifices in World War II. In the new kind of American war, political leaders ask citizens only to keep shopping and traveling.

Military historians like John Keegan have recently argued that the devastating toll of warfare in the 20th Century makes conventional conflicts increasingly less likely. Once a means of expanding territory and amassing wealth, the brutish wars of the 20th Century have rendered both objectives hard to attain. Even before Drone Wars, artillery and aerial warfare along with nuclear weapons suggested that wars can't really be won in the conventional sense any longer; even the victors will suffer unacceptable losses. But drone warfare radically alters the equation. Technologically advanced civilian populations -- just as Orwell foresaw -- can send their technological surrogates off to battle one another while humans stay home to wait for the outcome.

A war without sacrifice is definitely a 21st century idea. Why should citizens of any country hesitate to wage such a war if they have the machinery? War has recently seemed so terrible that civilized societies view it as a last resort. But American history is crammed with technological innovations that are neither discussed nor much thought out. Drone Wars might not appear so terrible. They might even become irresistible.

Comments

Re:Does this mean...

[mccalli]

I remember an original Star Trek episode, in which there was a conflict between two planets...

Yeah, I remember that one too. However, my conclusions were slightly different to yours. I drew the conclusion that Star Trek had lost the plot at that stage.

The war was supposed to have been going on for around five hundred years, yet in zooms Captain Kirk and in under half an hour he's sorted the situation out with a firm 'no' and a nice cup of tea.*

Did anyone else find that just a tinsy bit unrealistic...?

Cheers,
Ian

* Oh alright, I made up the bit about the tea.

General Jon Katz

[USian Pie]

Once again, we have an insightful, thoroughly-researched article from Mr. Katz. As usual, it is free of broad generalizations, stereotyping, and adherence to the peculiar sort of "conventional wisdom" that pervades Slashdot.

It is time we all started paying attention to what JonKatz has to say. Like most journalists, his grasp of military matters is complete. He presents us with cold, hard reality -- free of his personal bias or agenda.

Citizens of the US and world would do well to follow JonKatz's leadership. I suggest it is high time Mr. Katz receive the honorary title of General in the coming UN Military Organization.

We need his mind if we are going to save our children's world.

Don't think we haven't noticed or cared!

[alewando]

As a charter member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Robots, I feel the pain of these drones.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Robots was presciently chartered in the early 1660s long before robots were invented; the moral and ethical interest at stake was simply that compelling. Throughout the subsequent centuries, few other societies, royal or otherwise, have done as much to advance the civil rights of robots everywhere.

Remember the robot from NASA's Pathfinder mission? He's a card-carrying union member of the AFL/CIO, all thanks to the diligent lobbying of concerned RSfPR members. Rmember the scene at the end of Terminator 2: Judgment Day where the "evil" cyborg is destroyed by falling into a refinery's crucible? Though we did not successfully torpedo the whole production as an affront to non-diabolical cyborgs everywhere, we did manage to convince Hollywood executives to append a boilerplate warning at the end of the film informing the audience that no actual cyborgs were harmed in its production -- at the time, the T-1000 cyborg was safely sitting in his trailer sipping lattes while a cgi facsimile was lowered into the lava.

Just because they are made of silicon, metal, and oil doesn't mean they're any less significant at the dawning of a new moral age in the 21st century. That America would choose to sacrifice robotic drones instead of conventional meat soldiers simply demonstrates how far this once-great nation has sunk into the moral abyss.

Thank you.

Re:Bah

[Britney]

Hey, I saw "War Games"

Just get the drones to play each other at tic-tac-toe and the futility of war will dawn on them after a few draws.

We've (humans) had thousands of years of evidence, but we still don't get it.

Then again, how many presidents/kings/generals fight in the front line these days?

Robot Jox

[scout.finch]

Forget George Orwell and all that other pretentious 'literature' crap. The high watermark of visionary international conflict-resolution scenarios is, and always has been, the fine and epic film 'Robot Jox'. Soon we shall kneel before our chosen heros as they do battle with diamond chip rope-saws and magnesium flare blinders for our pleasure and the scant fossil-fuel remains of a shattered post-apocalyptic warzone.

Achiillleeessss!

The game is afoot

[3ryon]

After doing a little research I've discovered that there are several research projects in process for robot warfare. See: www.battlebots.com for the full details. It appears that the most efficient stratedgy is to flip the opponent robot onto it's side or back. Most of the drones are unable to recover from this vicious attack.

Many of the robot builders really dislike this proven stratedgy saying that it's too easy and prefer to try bludgen their opponents instead. Those builders generally lose.

Re:BZZT! Canada still constitutional monarchy

[mgblst]

While it hans't (ever?) happened, the Queen can still veto legislation in Canada through her official representative who must assent to all new legislation.

You speak of the Governor General, and while only a figure head, they do still have certain powers over the government. Australia came so close to becoming a republic a few years ago, so hopefully in another couple of years we will have broken free from our opressors!

Have you forgotten...

[Max the Merciless]

...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 the orders given 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.

Surely they remembered to code these laws into the Drone 0.99.14 kernel!?!

Holy cow, if they didn't then it is only a matter of time until we become the robot's pets! The fools, those damn fools!