War, in the most callous sense, is a way of resolving disputes.
But what impact would robotic soldiers have on the battle-field? Since the Second World War, civilian casualties of war have come to be considered as unacceptable as using poisonous gas was then. By 2015, the US government plans to have robots driving a proportion of their war vehicles. This makes sense — why should soldier’s lives be put in danger unnecessarily?
If soldiers are no longer in danger when the US wants to exert its influence, though, there’ll be no calls from US citizens to withdraw from Vietnam/Iraq-style wars. In fact, there’ll be no disincentive for the US at all. Already, in the Afghanistan war which removed the Taliban, the enemy have surrendered to unmanned vehicles…
When the US invades a future Iran without having to risk a single soldier, are the people of the US (who are famous, whether fairly or not, for being insular) going to be up in arms over the deaths foreign soldiers and/or partisans at the hands of the US military machine?
This isn’t the only concern, either, what happens when, inevitably, the Chinese or another future super-power, ape this technology? When the US and China come to blows in an automated army future, will the resolution of war just be the country most able to make robots quickly? And, if so, does war stop being some ultimate solution to a dispute and instead become the first course? Or, bizarrely, does it become pointless anyway — just another form of economic sanctions?
I look forward to a time when your car can drive you home from a night at the pub but should we be worried or excited about the implications on war?
I would suggest that we should be extremely concerned in the short-term and extremely optimistic in the long-term. What do you think?
Comments