Wired for War

stoolpigeon writes "The US Army's Future Combat Systems program calls for one third of their fighting strength to be robots by 2015. The American pilots seeing the most combat in Iraq and Afghanistan right now do so from flight consoles in the United States, and they are controlling Predator unmanned vehicles. Every branch of the US military has aggressive robotics programs in place. This is not anything unusual. Other nations are also developing and purchasing robotic systems designed to be used in combat. Advances in communications, software and hardware make it inevitable that robotics will have a profound effect on conflict in the future. The development of these systems has been rapid, and while technology hurtles forward, culture and understanding seem to lag behind. Similar to the way our legal codes are playing catch-up with new technologies, combat-enabled robots raise questions and issues that did not even exist a short time ago. Wired for War by Dr. P. W. Singer is an excellent opportunity for anyone interested to dive into just what is going on all over the world with regards to robotics and their use by the military." Read below for the rest of JR's review. Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century author P. W. Singer pages 499 publisher The Penguin Press rating 10/10 reviewer JR Peck ISBN 978-1-59420-198-1 summary The robotics revolution and conflict in the 21st century. Singer is Senior Fellow and Director of the 21st Century Defense Initiative at the Brookings Institution. His focus and study on changes in modern warfare have made him one of the world's top experts on the nature of modern day combat as well as what developments are likely to come. Singer is an academic, but Wired for War is not a strictly academic approach to the issue of robots in war. He has made an intentional effort to make the book approachable, delivering a large amount of information wrapped in the context of popular culture and current events. The average geek is going to feel right at home in the sea of references made throughout the book as they often turn on sci-fi. This is not to say that the book dwells in a possible future of far-flung vaporware. Wired for War is divided into two large sections. The first is "The Change We are Creating" and deals with the definition, history and current technology of robotics. Some of this is talking about robotics in general but primarily with a view to military applications. Singer makes it clear that he believes that robotics is going to have a huge impact on many more areas of society and culture, but war is the focus of this work.

The last chapter of the first section, "The Refuseniks: The Roboticists Who Just Say No" is an interesting look at those who are not comfortable with the direction they see technology being deployed. It makes for a very natural segue into the second section, "What Change is Creating for Us". It also serves as an excellent illustration of just what Singer does in this book. There is not a lot of highly technical detail or information. The discussion of various technologies in play deals primarily with capabilities available as opposed to how those capabilities are achieved. This is in keeping with Singer's stated desire to keep the book open to a wide audience. It also serves to reinforce what I believe is the real purpose of the book, though it is more subtly stated. That purpose is to educate the members of democracies on what is going on in the militaries of their nations, so that they can be more informed in how they participate in the political process. This is as much a sociology book as it is a technology book and as much as it gives insight into how the military uses technology it also gives insight into military trends and subcultures. Primarily the examples given and information shared deal with the U.S. military. The Chinese military gets some time as well but it is quite small in comparison.

This would probably be my only disappointment with the book. (Well there are two but the second is very specific and small. John Scalzi is called Joe Scalzi on page 369 and in the index.) It is understandable that most of the information is U.S. centric. Singer has been involved with America's Department of Defense and the American military is one of the few that is spending the amounts of money they spend on such a wide array of robotic systems. Singer does discuss how others are getting into the game, and even how less likely players, like insurgents can make use of robotic tech, but there is never the same depth of analysis and information for any other nation as the U.S. It's not that large an issue, the book is still excellent but I would love to see a work of the same depth and breadth that dealt solely with abilities and programs that are not American.

As I mentioned the second section deals much more with how all of this change is apt to change us. Singer deals with questions about not only what robots do to war but what they do to warriors, military leaders, governments and civilians. There is a lot here to chew on and to be honest I found the book to be more than a little frightening at times. Singer doesn't just point out new machines and revel in the engineering challenges that have been overcome. He digs in to see what the ramifications are for all of us and some of it could be very bad. At the same time Singer is not against technology and can see the good side of many developments. I think that what he fears most is that many will remain ignorant of just what is taking place and by the time they are all playing catch up it will be too late. I try to stay current on unmanned systems and military changes but there were quite a few revelations to me in the pages of Wired for War. Singer does not shy away from tough questions and I think his previous experience studying warfare, especially in the third world, comes to bear.

This isn't just a book for gun nuts that love to see stuff explode. This is a book for anyone who wants to be up to date on the technological changes that have come and are coming to warfare. As I mentioned, Singer emphasizes the importance of being informed about these things for the members of any democratically governed society. The people of such a nation are culpable in the actions of their leaders and how force is is deployed against others. How can they rightly use the power they have if they are ignorant of the capabilities and the very nature of the systems their military uses? And even more importantly what happens if they do not question the changes in perspective that robots in warfare bring not only to those who deploy such systems but to those who are the targets of automated violence and finally those who look on from the sidelines?

The book covers a lot of ground but does so in an eminently readable way. Part of this is that the notes do not occur at the bottom of the page but at the back of the book. In the back they are numbered but those numbers are not placed in the text. This can make it very difficult to find just how the information fits together. I can see the up side of not interrupting the flow but at the same time it could be frustrating working my way through to be sure I had found the matching note. This also reflects the book having part of one foot in the academic world while the rest of it stands closer to popular literature. The index is decent. This book will in all likelihood be quoted quite a bit and stand as the standard on military robotics for a while. There is a center section of black and white photographs featuring current robotic systems, military and civilian.

Singer addresses the debate over the rate of change in technology and the views of some that we are approaching the singularity where all bets will be off. Whether or not change is gaining momentum at an exponential rate, it is taking place quickly and at some point the technology that Singer covers will be old news. That said, the majority of the attention is given to questions and issues revolving around ethics and morality that will not go away any time soon. This book is going to be a fascinating read for many while educating and expanding their horizons at the same time. I recommend it without reservation.

You can purchase Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

Comments

rock or a UAV

[internerdj]

Do the ethics or morality of killing people change because of the tool?

Re:rock or a UAV

[bughunter]

No, not in your example. Not as long as it still requires a willful act of a human to take another human's life.

I help build one of the most heavily used UAVs in the US Military, and when it was proposed we put a weapon system on board, I had to consider my ethical position. The question boiled down to the issue in the first paragraph: will the person pulling the trigger be in control, or will it be an indiscriminate killing machine?

The answer to this question is different for a missile than it is for, say, a cluster munition or a land mine... or a nuclear weapon.

I have no problem building a weapon that retains operator control over the targeting. I will not build something that discharges automatically, or which has such a large area of effect that collateral casualties are unavoidable, or that will be used against civilian targets.

Re:rock or a UAV

[vlm]

I will not build something that .... will be used against civilian targets

How did you build that into your UAV? Even in theory, I can't imagine how that could be designed. Magic?

Re:rock or a UAV

[tcopeland]

> And yet it is only ever been a Western country that has used nukes on people.

Yup. That was before those taboos were developed, since the weapons had just been created.

A more troubling NBC usage (since it's more recent) is Iran vs Iraq, where chem weapons were a standard weapon. I bet you that's what folks in Israel are more concerned about too.

Re:rock or a UAV

[stoolpigeon]

That's how the taboo comes into existence. Once a type of weapons system is developed it only becomes a question of time before it is deployed.

Re:rock or a UAV

[pluther]

I agree with you to some extent about dehumanizing war. The more automated it becomes the more likely we are to engage in it. And the more the American people will support it.

I think we're already at the point of the mentality you mention, though: "I believe in this enough to kill others, but I don't want to sacrifice my own life for it." None of the people who made the decisions to start the last couple of wars were going to be risking their lives. And the people actually doing the fighting don't get to make the decisions about where, or whether, they fight.

Re:rock or a UAV

[Anonymous Coward]

He's morally bankrupt because he'll allow the person doing the killing to take responsibility for doing the killing?

Maybe you could be a little more careful about the character assassination, eh? People might take you more seriously.

Re:rock or a UAV

[bughunter]

You can parse it that way if you feel the need for moral superiority, or you can parse it in context.

If "allowing someone else to be in control" is your definition of morally bankrupt, then you are in an equally indefensible position as I. Especially if you are an American citizen who enjoys things like cheap oil.

Re:rock or a UAV

[bughunter]

Sorry - hasty choice of words. I should have more accurately written "intended for use against civilian targets" - e.g., a strategic weapon.

We don't build decision-making into UAVs. Nobody does. They're waldoes, remotely piloted at all times. The "skynet" scenario is a SF cliche, made joke, now becoming a scare tactic. It's a cliche, nothing more. If you believe otherwise, you're woefully ignorant about how they work and how they're made.

But what of using robots on civilians

[Anonymous Coward]

"I like being butcher, you know exactly who you are killing. And why." - Boris the Butcher.

War is hell, but soldiers know what they're signing up for. It's the civilians I'm concerned about.

Will robots take away any responsibility or accountability for war crimes or atrocities? When 20 people are wiped out by a "robot malfunction", is it any less heinous? Who is held responsible in these cases, the manufacturer, the operator, who?

Re:Skynet

[Maximum Prophet]

Machines don't need sentience to kill. They might need it to refrain from killing though...

Re:Skynet

[sgt_doom]

Gee, mcgrew, as an Air Force veteran myself (and a combat vet and a USMC vet), everytime I hear about a wedding party obliterated and red misted in Afghanistan (and it's happened frequently) I am terribly sickened by any further clowns and their plans & predictions from the Brookings Institute (they've certainly done enough damage during their existence).

It further sickens me to realize few of the blithering idiots who refer to themselves as Americans comprehend that Brzezinksi, the national security advisor under Carter, was responsible for beginning the strategic doctrine which turned a secular Afghanistan into a fundamentalist Islamic enclave (read his memoirs for the details). I browsed the Wired for War - as I refuse to spend money on any senior fellows at any of these 'tutes and foundations which do so much social engineering in the USA, and elsewhere - and wouldn't recommend it.

like cross-bows in the middle ages

[shadowofwind]

I see the introduction of robotic weapons to be a dangerous and ominous development. When you kill someone face to face, you experience it more directly, and you put yourself more directly at risk. When you use tools to kill from a distance, the risks are less obvious and wrongs are easier to deny. Was aerial bombing of cities in WW II a good development? The consensus seems to be that it was, but I'm not sure. And at least then there were men in the aircraft. Now a president can order an unmanned attack on a group of terrorists, or a wedding party as the case may be, at very little political risk, since there is no pilot to be captured or killed. And the scale of this sort of thing will become much, much larger. Of course a lot of such developments are inevitable, particularly once the genie is out of the bottle, but we do have some ability to change our trajectory a little bit.

The Skynet disaster won't happen, because computers aren't even remotely close to dangerous intelligence. But something similar could happen with men at the helm, using the technology to maintain their lifestyle at everyone else's expense. How long before some really strong countries start using nuclear weapons and unmanned surveillance and delivery systems to extort wealth from less powerful nations? I mean more overtly than happens currently? I think it will happen, not far in the future probably.

Re:like cross-bows in the middle ages

[Shihar]

There is a flip side to pulling humans farther back from the killing. While yes, you don't have to put a gun in someone's face and pull the trigger physically and this might cause detachment, consider the much more common scenario. We tend to sensationalize when soldiers go nuts and kill civilians needlessly. What we miss is that these incidents are very very rare and account for only the thinest fraction of civilian casualties. Far more often what happens when civilians die is that a small squad of men take fire from a building and shoot up the building to kill the bad guys inside, killing innocent civilians in the process. Most armies, but especially democratic armies, are extremely casualty adverse. The result is that the doctrine they fight with generally employees extreme self defense measures.

When a square of men get caught flat footed and ambushed they tend to unload massive amounts of firepower to save themselves. Rules of engagement be damned, most people are unhappy about being shot dead and will do just about anything to avoid it. Close young comrades pumped up on adrenaline and armed with enough firepower to level a small city watching each other die make really shitty moralist. You don't need to see the world from a camera lens to dehumanize people, you just need to see your buddy get shot next to you and know that the surrounding civilians offered up no warning and are probably harboring the people that shot your friend. At that point, you become a lot less concerned about collateral damage when you try and defend your life and the life of your fellows.

Robotics offers up an alternative. When robots are doing the dying and fighting you are pulling men out of a dangerous situation. You remove the kill or be killed mentality. You are no longer bonded by a sense of kinship between the people in your square. If one robot in a square of robot "dies" you just turn off the screens and go have a coffee. On top of that, it is no longer a dozen guys and one low level leader making life and death decisions. Hell, you could station a military lawyer right next to a drone operator. Everything is recorded such that if you break the rules of engagement you get your ass kicked. A bunch of guys sitting in a room with computers with their every move recorded and superiors always right there to give direction is pretty much the polar opposite of a dozen guys surrounded by bad guys with their lives on the line and their every moral decision weighed against whether or not they live or die.

Robotics offer up the opportunity take the preservation of the life of the soldier out of the equation. Whatever extra fire power it adds is meaningless. If killing civilians is what you want, we don't need robots to do it. The US could have killed every living thing in Iraq if that had been its intention. What it really wants is to pull the lives out of the equation not because it makes the extermination of the populace easier, but because it makes deciding to not fight to save a few easily swayed civilians drastically easier.

The concerns that it might make war too easy are certainly valid, but if you just want to blow stuff up we have already come and gone from that point. The US can bomb pretty much any non-first world nation with complete impunity with the exception of China. The far more profound effect drones are going to have is when they start taking the preservation of the life of the soldier out of the question.

Re:Skynet

[thedonger]

...the populist tide didn't turn against the Iraq war until the US body count really started going up.

It's not that the body count "really started going up," but that the only reporting from the field was the body count. The only people who think the body count is too high are: people who lost someone close to them and therefore to whom one is too high a count; and people opposed to war without regard for body count. We lost more than 60,000 in Vietnam; 40,000 in Korea; more than a quarter million in WWII; more than 500,000 in the civil war.

Re:Skynet

[ryturner]

Laws that make it illegal to discriminate based on sex don't apply to the military. In the US, only guys are required to register for the draft.

Re:Skynet

[Abcd1234]

The only people who think the body count is too high are: people who lost someone close to them and therefore to whom one is too high a count; and people opposed to war without regard for body count. We lost more than 60,000 in Vietnam; 40,000 in Korea; more than a quarter million in WWII; more than 500,000 in the civil war.

So that makes the thousands lost in Iraq, a war started for dubious reasons, okay?

Something tells me your opinions don't represent those of a typical American.

Re:Skynet

[johnsonav]

Not so good to be on the human victims side if the aggressor side has absolutely no chance of injury or death.

If the "aggressor" has no chance of injury or death, what's the point in resisting?

In the face of overwhelming military superiority (a virtually unlimited supply of kill-bots, operated by people safely located thousands of miles away), there is no fight. And, with no fight, there are no casualties on either side.

Re:Skynet

[mrdoogee]

I think you're safe. The selective service has always just been for men. Sexist, yes, but this is one inequality that I'll bet NOW is not in a hurry to correct.

Re:Skynet

[osu-neko]

If the "aggressor" has no chance of injury or death, what's the point in resisting?

In the face of overwhelming military superiority (a virtually unlimited supply of kill-bots, operated by people safely located thousands of miles away), there is no fight. And, with no fight, there are no casualties on either side.

...

Given the evidence of the last two decades, I must say this might be the single more stupid statement I've ever seen posted.

Your enemies don't care about your overwhelming military superiority. And they know you're fooling yourself if you think there's no chance of injury or death on your side. Your people sitting in bunkers operating drones may not be killed or injured, but their kids at the shopping mall will die just as easily as ever when the bomb goes off.

Re:Skynet

[tibman]

Not to nitpic but there are no frontlines in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also women cannot be in Combat arms, only combat support. This is not to say they could not be harmed, but that they won't be directly placed into harm. It's a bad thing when support units need to pull triggers, though often necessary when operating in a hostile environment.

Re:Skynet

[e2d2]

True. But if you include the security forces surrounding installations, then women do serve in combat roles. And of course there have been well publicized accounts of women fighter pilots in the US Air Force and the Navy.

Combat roles demand a lot from a person. The question becomes - can this person carry 75lbs of gear on their back for 20Km over terrible terrain and then at the end be capable of fighting effectively? Can this person kill the enemy in a close-quarters situation? etc. It's not about sexism, it's about physical strength in the long run. Combat roles are tough on a person's body.

Re:Skynet

[mcgrew]

It's odd now, woman have all the rights men have, but man lack many of the rights woman have, especially reproductive rights.

Re:Skynet

[mcgrew]

That's so, and I had sort of an argument about that with my dad, who was trying to talk me into talking my daughter into joining the military. "Are you crazy?" I asked him. He said "well, it's not like they're going to be on the front lines." I replied that everywhere in Iraq or Afghanistan WAS the front line. If you're stationed in either of those countries, you are placed directly in harm's way.

Re:Skynet

[Abcd1234]

Would 1 death be acceptable to you in a war started for dubious reasons?

In a war started for dubious reasons, of course not. In a war started for justifiable reasons (say, operations in Afghanistan), then yes, most certainly.

If not, then you are part of the "without regard for body count" to which the poster was referring.

Wrong. The GP said, and I quote:

The only people who think the body count is too high are: people who lost someone close to them and therefore to whom one is too high a count; and people opposed to war without regard for body count.

He explicitly says "opposed to war". Not "opposed to dubious wars". The former are people who don't understand reality. The latter expect proper justification before the government goes to war, as war currently requires sacrifice. Take away the sacrifice and suddenly it's a lot easier to go to war.

Re:Skynet

[thedonger]

So that makes the thousands lost in Iraq, a war started for dubious reasons, okay?

Judging history via hindsight is dubious.

In the wake of thousands dead in various attacks including the Trade Towers, the crazy nature of Saddam, the fact that he had used chemical weapons in the past, violation of UN mandates for a decade following the Gulf War and ejection of nuclear inspectors during that same time, it didn't seem so dubious. In fact, not only was the president's rating high, but almost all of congress was behind him.

Fast forward a couple years towards an election year, and suddenly the democrats had the wool pulled over their eyes (just like the "torture" bullshit that went on a few months ago) and "the Bushies" lied to the American people. Lives were being lost in an "un-winnable war" and the press was eager to report the latest deaths like there would be an award for it.

People are fickle, short-sighted, and easily swayed by their favorite talking heads in between commercial lobotomies for Easy Cheese and microwave dinners.

Cognitive snag. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

Iraq: draw. We destroyed the army, and then sat on our hands as the country fell apart, causing great immiseration of the citizenry. We handed over the meatiest stuff to political cronies. After several years of clear failure, Iraq is now a marginal state whose future is up for grabs.

A draw? I think when viewed from the top of the pyramid, the state of Iraq as we see it today was always the desired result. --Actually, I'd say that every one of the wars you outline was a roaring success from the organizer's standpoint. Tons of money shifted from the public purse into private holdings, and lots of fear and chaos resulted; the perfect environment for the psychopath to expand and entrench its world view within the popular collective mental environment we all have to live in.

Politicians and industrialists like war, but regular people only pick up arms after significant mind conditioning has taken place. --After all, regular Joes are the ones getting their limbs shot off for their trouble. All the little Bushies and Daddy Warbucks' don't risk a damned thing.

As such, I think you might be making the common mistake of believing that the stated objectives as they appear in the propaganda are in fact the REAL objectives. --But once that little cognitive snag gets straightened out, the world suddenly makes a lot more sense to the observer.

-FL

Re:Skynet

[thedonger]

I think you missed your own point. The reasons for war were not dubious until mid-war when Dems and certain media decided being against the war would win an election. Public opinion followed from a boat-load of Kool Aid drinking and hindsight that maybe Saddam was too crazy to develop WMDs.

Who in their right mind relishes the deaths of their own people for any cause? Not one single person (now, I haven't talked to everyone, but I'm willing to guess) wanted anyone to die. The difference is that some people see the dead and think, "a fallen hero fighting for his country," and others think, "a pawn to position in my [bid for reelection|attempt to attract advertisers to my network]."

People have sacrificed so much for this country over our 250 years, and we are so unbelievably detached from that sense of sacrifice. Almost everyone born in the 1960s or later has led a charmed life, relatively speaking.

Re:Skynet

[mcgrew]

That's not what I'm talking about. Women have a plethora of birth control choices, while men have only three, none of them very good: Abstinence, permanent surgery, or condome (require the woman's permission). If a woman gets pregnant, she can abort the fetus and the father has no say in the matter. If she carries it to term, she can give it up for adoption and again the father has no say, without a court fight. Or she can keep the child and the father pays child support for eighteen years.