La guerra robótica del futuro

El uso de dispositivos robóticos se generaliza. Un 30% de las salidas aéreas de los EE.UU. ya son cumplidas por aviones sin piloto. Por el momento, los robots están lejos de revolucionar el arte de la guerra y reemplazar al combatiente llano. Solo ayudan en las viejas y conocidas tareas de siempre. Pero, ¿qué sucedería si así fuera? Desde un punto de vista moral: ¿estamos dispuestos a aceptarlo?

 

 

Strategic Horizons: The Future of Roboticized Warfare

By Steven Metz, on 26 Sep 2012

The new weapons that sprouted on the battlefields of World War I ultimately revolutionized warfare. At the time of their appearance, however, most of them were used in a very traditional way, making old-fashioned infantry and artillery more effective rather than ushering in new ways of fighting. Airplanes spotted targets for artillery batteries, scouted for the infantry and provided close air support. There were some attempts at strategic bombing, but due to the limited payload and range of the aircraft of the time, it had little effect. Tanks, which first appeared in 1917, operated with infantry units as moveable machine gun nests or bunkers.
In other words, the appearance of these new weapons initially represented innovation but not revolution. It wasn't until after the war that military theorists recognized the revolutionary potential of tanks and planes if they were used properly. By World War II, rather than helping infantry slog across the battlefield, tanks and planes had become the spearhead of fast-moving combined arms formations that could operate deep behind enemy lines, with infantry supporting them rather than the other way around.

Cut to today: In Iraq, Afghanistan and the insurgent sanctuaries of Pakistan, the U.S. military has fielded a wide array of new technologies, with robotics being by far the most important. Today, 30 percent of U.S. military aircraft flying in those conflicts are drones. Nearly every land unit has robots of one type or the other. But as in World War I, new technologies have been used to augment existing military formations and methods. While robots are pervasive, they are not revolutionary. At least not yet.

Revolutionary military concepts like armored warfare and strategic bombing were created in the 1920s, a time of limited defense budgets, small militaries and a less frenetic operational pace that gave military theorists time to think and experiment. The United States appears to be entering a similar time, opening the door for revolutionary ideas. This may free military robots from their supporting role, as theoretical revolutionaries invent radically new ways to use them in innovative, robot-centric formations.

It's not hard to imagine the advantages of robot-centric military formations, particularly for conflict on land. A roboticized Army or Marine unit could have as much or more capability than a current one, with significantly fewer humans. This would both lower the chances of U.S. casualties and save some of the massive costs represented by recruiting, training, educating, housing and feeding troops, as well as providing medical care and post-service benefits to members of the military. It also could ease a potential recruiting crisis as the annual cohorts of 18-year-olds get smaller.

Robot-centric units would be especially valuable when the U.S. military is forced to operate among the civilian population, whether in urban combat operations surrounded by noncombatants or in counterinsurgency, peacekeeping, stabilization and humanitarian relief. In those situations, it is always difficult to have enough troops for an around-the-clock presence. But even when this obstacle is overcome, large numbers of U.S. troops require large amounts of food, water, housing and medical support. They can also antagonize the local population when operations go awry. Robots could ease these problems. In urban combat, it is very difficult for military units to make sure that buildings and neighborhoods cleared of enemy troops stay that way. Robots could go a long way toward resolving this. They do not need to sleep or eat, and they do not make mistakes from fear or fatigue. They may also be less likely to create fear, anger or resentment among the locals.

At the same time, a revolution in the way the U.S. military uses robots would also pose challenges. One of the most important is the ethical question of the extent to which a human must be involved in any decision to use deadly force. Will it be acceptable for a killer robot, once it positively identifies an enemy, to shoot on its own, or must that decision be left to a human linked to the robot? While robots can outperform humans at recognizing certain traits that characterize an enemy combatant -- carrying a rifle, for instance -- they cannot make complex ethical decisions.

It is easy to become enraptured by new technology and lose sight of reality. In 1921, for instance, Italian Gen. Giulio Douhet predicted that airplanes would make other forms of military power obsolete. Those who today make similar predictions about robots fully replacing humans in armed conflict are likely to be proven wrong as well, at least for the foreseeable future. Nonetheless, we are now at a point where a revolution in military robotics is technologically feasible. The question is whether the imagination exists within the military to make it happen. So far only a very few writers outside the military have begun to explore this revolutionary potential. Peter W. Singer's 2009 book, “Wired for War,” is the leading example. In the military itself, the robot revolutionaries have yet to emerge.

Hopefully Americans will grapple with the strategic and ethical issues involved in roboticized warfare before technology propels the robot revolution in unpredictable directions. Would a U.S. military heavily based on robots be politically easier for a future president to deploy? And if so, would that be a good thing? Do Americans truly want a military that is easier to use? Do they want to delegate life-and-death decisions to machines? In the broadest sense, can the robot revolution even be stopped, or is it inevitable?

We do not know where the military robot revolution will lead, but it is sure to be very different from where we are today. Better to shape that process now, rather than be dragged along by it tomorrow.

Steven Metz is a defense analyst and the author of "Iraq and the Evolution of American Strategy." His weekly WPR column, Strategic Horizons, appears every Wednesday.