Autonomous Weaponry
From English 194 Wiki Site
By Brooke Birrenkott
04:45, 1 June 2006 (PDT)
Contents |
Abstract
The military has proven its success in creatively formulating a machine which has the ability to self-direct and self-control, otherwise known as an autonomous system. These systems are the current result of a continuous attempt to make weapons more efficient. Strangely enough, these autonomous weapons seemingly mimic that of human cognitive reasoning. The use of human qualities sheds light onto the idea that there are dangers within the possibility of robots replacing humans in battle through their autonomous skills; how will the robot's means of taking up arms during war, and making executive decisions on who to kill affect humanity and the morality of those within war? This is to say that although these autonomous systems have proven developers of military creations as extremely successful, there is danger within the idea of robots making executive decisions specifically within the lines of war.
Description
An analysis on the recent development of the autonomous weapon. Social implications, controversies, examples, and descriptions are all included.
Autonomous systems:
- Make executive decisions
- Self-directing and self-controlling
- Ability to perceive, think and accomplish particular actions
- Light plane (can be carried by one soldier)
- Camera located on plane which has day and night vision
- Used currently in Iraq
Robocopter
- Nimble helicopters
- Airborne acrobatics
- Autonomous helicopter
Autonomous Land Vehicle (ALV):
- Granddaddy
- Developed for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the U.S. Army Engineer Topographic Laboratories
- Basis for future autonomous vehicles
- Contains lasers, video cameras and radars that feed data to a computer system which allow it to be autonomous.
Key problematic aspects of autonomous systems:
- Perception
- Path-planning
Contraversies:
- Money
- Ethics with robots making executive decisions to kill
Analysis and Evaluation
The military has always been dependent upon creativity, although one would not automatically link the two. Specifically, the military utilizes creative faculties in hope of benefiting war tactics. The use of weapons constitutes a large component of war tactics; moreover, weapons are deemed essential. Although development directed towards weaponry is important in light of war and competition, there are many dangers to the creation of newer and more efficient weapons. The question that most ask is, ‘When does the continuous development of more threatening weapons come to a halt?’ The danger and efficiency of current weaponry is exemplified in the autonomous weapon. The expansion was not achieved through easy means; rather, this weapon is an end result to a long lasting line of electronic weapons.
Electronic weaponry ignited during the Vietnam War. Although this war was viewed by many as a “debacle”, few acknowledge the success that was derived from this particular war; During the Vietnam War, electronic weaponry was made and tested for the first time, constituting the primary stages of the automated battlefield (Din 101). In turn, this success marked a pivotal point in the history of military technology. More specifically, technological achievement was accomplished through the “the development of complex, long-range sensor-technology for surveillance, remotely piloted vehicles, TV- and laser-guided ‘smart’ bombs” (Din 101). The next step within the field of electronic weaponry involved General Westmoreland’s goal to develop an automated battlefield within ten years. Westmoreland describes the future battlefield in hope of providing an outline for his goal: His explanation includes the quick location, tracking and targeting of enemy forces through “the use of data-links, computer assisted intelligence evaluation, and automated fire control” (Din 101). He continues with the idea that large forces will no longer deem necessary since new technology will allow for almost perfectly accurate targeting and surveillance in locating an enemy. Moreover, the autonomous weapon has been present for some time; however, there are still necessary attempts, such as Westermoreland's stated goal, to perfect the system in order to implement it within the battlefield.
Westermoreland’s goal for a battlefield run by electronics has ultimately led to a more accurate autonomous system and the goal also represents the continuous and inevitable attempt to better the system. The high expenses of war (casualties, economic and cultural burden)also provide reasoning for the continuous struggle to maintain a more accurate weapon. This necessity sheds light on the fact that although the autonomous weapon is an extremely recent development, the way in which the accuracy and intelligence of weapons has increased exponentially deems the very essence of the development as inevitable. In other words, although this particular weapon is new, the idea and desire for such a weapon has been well on its way for some time. The inevitability of autonomous weapons can be explained through the fact that automated systems are being used more frequently within war.
This exponential increase in the use of automated weaponry places intelligence and training for war on a higher level; in order to win, one must not only have self-aiming guns and self-flying bombs, but one also must be armed with intelligent sensors and weapons and also must be skilled for the difficult weapons. To further this point, the development of other similar weapons has led to the autonomous weapon. These similar weapons include robots and modern cruise missiles. Furthermore, those attempting to develop autonomous weapons only need to configure a way in which the already-made weapon could think on its own; for instance, the military would need to find a way for the robot to make executive decisions. Therefore, the executive decision for robots is currently the leading necessity for creative developments of weapons. Moreover, each simpler system will lead to a more complex system.
The way in which simpler weapons lead to more complex weapons, such as the autonomous weapons, involves the continuous, creative development of weapons. The development of weapons is essential because of competition and the “relentless escalation of computer competence” (Rawlins). When one side of the battle develops antiaircraft missiles, for example, the other side must formulate an attempt to destroy these missiles. Therefore, in response, they develop antimissile missiles. Then, the other side will have to react to the latter missiles. This succession exemplifies a seemingly endless process of out-doing the other side through the use of new developments. These endless attempts can be described as a “never-ending upward spiral” (Rawlins). This seemingly endless process has, however, led to the beneficial,autonomous system.
The idea of an autonomous system involves a machine that can make executive decisions. These systems are self-directing and self-controlling. In turn, they must have the ability to perceive, think and accomplish particular actions. An example of the autonomous system is seen within a factory; when a robot arm of the factory finds a deformed product within the assembly line, the arm must follow a few steps which seem to mimic cognitive thought. Primarily, the robot arm must have the ability to detect the product, then realize that the object is defective, continue by formulating a way to dispense of the defective object, and finally must accomplish the plan. It is pertinent that the robot has some sort of vision, a means of detecting particular shapes, and a predetermined way to dispose of deformed items in order to perform the latter task autonomously. Although the robot exemplifies an autonomous system, placing a similar system out into the world would bring about complexities.
The autonomous weapon must be developed within the scope of its prospective environment. The weapon must have the ability to work outside of factory conditions. Moreover, the weapon must be versatile in light of its surroundings, which may deem complex. This complication implies that autonomous weapons lie on a much broader context than that of the robot within the factory. Another difference between the factory robot and the weapon delves within the intelligence of the machinery. While the factory robot’s job is consistant and most of the same problems occur, the autonomous weapon may face a variety of difficulties in locating targets because of obstacles in terrain or problems within the war area. In turn, these particular machines must utilize evasive tactics and have the ability to configure each individual problematic situation quickly and accurately within itself. Because an autonomous system is transferred from a controlled environment (where it is tested) to an outside, inconstant environment, the system must learn to adapt to the human world. Interestingly, the autonomous weapons seem similar to that of artificial intelligence. Through this association to artificial intelligence and the fact that autonomous systems have “inferential and planning capabilities” (Lehner 156), it is evident that these systems can be seen as “intelligent”. An intelligent system must have subsystems to accomplish certain aspects of its procedure; for example, the system must have a physical subsystem that accounts for its means of planning. A system may have a computer vision/imaging system for a subsystem that accomplishes its perceptual capability and an automated planner to plan its movements. The use of multiple subsystems portrays that these systems are a conglomeration of artificial intelligence and ulterior technologies. Therefore, the variety of surroundings serves as a problem within the development of autonomous systems; however researchers continue to find more accurate ways to fight this problem.
The versatility of the autonomous system is not only seen through its interior ability and materials, but also through where the weapon can be positioned. Moreover, the weapon can be placed on the ground or in the sky. An example includes that of the military version of the John Deere Gator, which has iRobot installed into it. This vehicle is used to transfer objects around the battlefield, and with the implementation of the iRobot, the vehicle can operate autonomously. This system specializes in disposing of hazardous waste, carrying ammunition or conducting patrols. Two examples of air autonomous types of weapons include that of nimble helicopters (see Nimble helicopters and the Desert Hawk.
The Desert Hawk is an extremely light plane which can be carried by one soldier and has a camera which can see during day or night. This flying vehicle is currently utilized in Iraq. The nimble helicopter, otherwise known as the robocopter, is a small, autonomous helicopter that has the ability to do airborne acrobatics. However, there have been many previous autonomous weapons.
In attempt to further this process and ignite further ALV development, the Darpa Grand Challenge was implemented. A “142-mile cross-country course” allowed for those who entered to show that their autonomous vehicle could withstand extreme conditions (Lerner). However, the primary attempt at this challenge was not a success since no single vehicle completed the entire 142 miles. In turn, another challenge was planned for the next year that proved very successful; five vehicles finished the challenge. This event also helped decipher the best ways to equip autonomous vehicles; they found that ladar and stereo cameras deemed the most accurate sensors.
Through the various examples and explanation of autonomous systems, it is evident as to why these systems are extremely valuable and simultaneously inevitable. An associate professor of aeronautical engineering, Eric Fenton, implicates the necessity of the autonomous system through its ability to accomplish dangerous tasks: “We can send unmanned systems where we wouldn’t dare to send manned systems” (Herper). Moreover, these systems could accomplish particular courses that are too dangerous for man. Fenton continues in saying, “As vehicles shrink in size, we’re going to be able to reinvent air vehicles as items that can go where no airplane dares to go. We’ll go deep into canyons, maybe inside buildings" (Herper). Although this quote covers the issue of danger, it additionally contemplates the ability that a small, flying autonomous device would have in contrast to large planes. Ultimately, a small autonomous object would open an entirely new world in which one could investigate new areas and situations that were never seen before. Furthermore, these small devices could provide aid for other fields, such as fire fighting and could help save fires too dangerous for men. On another level, autonomous systems would allow for an entirely different view of war. More specifically, these systems could have the ability to kill other systems or people; this implies that the human would not assassinate as much, if not any more. Moreover, the difficulties of war, such as killing and shell-shock, would no longer serve as a problem. These autonomous weapons seem inevitable since they would render many benefits to the country which develops them.
While these autonomous weapons render numerous benefits, there are still problems which developers must face that are key to the action of the autonomous weapon. Two problematic, yet essential areas include perception and path-planning. This suggests that it is important for these systems to see well enough to recognize problems in terrain and also intelligent enough to find a way around these situations. Based on this statement, information processing is extremely valuable to these systems. In attempt to solve this problem, most autonomous robots have the ability to form a 3-D image of their surroundings. These systems additionally have a 2D map which allocates the safety of particular areas. Both GPS and an inertial navigation system allow for the mapping of the robot within the territory. On top of all of these maps, the robot also has a path-planning subsystem which provides the quickest and safest path for the autonomous system. These attempts portray the success developers have had in working with perception and path-planning.
Even while developers continue to alter these technicalities of the autonomous weapon in hope of making the weapon more efficient, there are controversies about money and ethics regarding their use in war. Although the replacement of these machines for humans in assassinating the other side seems to make war easier on many levels, this is not the case for all. There is a sense in which the use of these autonomous robots to kill others seems to place the value of life on an extremely lower level. Their utilization also provides a means for the country which sends the systems to war, to distance themselves from the scene. This disassociation could allow for death and war to get out of hand. These catastrophes are not meant to be finished with a push of a button. The distance seen through the use of robots parallels with the calling people who are killed targets. The use of the word targets again dehumanizes the battle and positions life and death on a much lower level. Controversies are also seen within the spending of a large amount of money for these autonomous robots. These robots are not cheap and mass production would prove quite a large payment. Therefore, various individuals do not believe that the development of autonomous weapons would be ethically correct or very beneficial economically, however, the battle continues in need to further the “relentless escalation of computer competence” and compete for better machinery in war (Rawlins).
Ultimately, the use of autonomous weapons is the current result of the “relentless escalation of computer competence.” These weapons deem extremely essential in war and could possibly take over many aspects of the battlefield. However, there are definite controversies over the idea of using these autonomous weapons to kill other people and allowing each robot the ability to make decisions of killing whoever, as well as the large amount of money needed for future autonomous weapons.
Works Cited
- Popular science
- Robots of War
- The Hyperkinetic War
- When Robots Do the Killing
- Din, Allan M. Arms and Artificial Intelligence. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.
- Shaker, Steven M. and Alan R. wise. War Without Men: Robots on the Future Battlefield. Washington: Pergamon-Brassey's: Internatioonal Defense publishers, Inc., 1988.
- Committee on Autonomous Vehicles in Support of naval Operations. Autonomous Vehicles in Support of Naval Operation. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2005.
- Lehner, Paul E. Artifical Intelligence and national Defense: Opportunity and Challenge. Blue Ridge Summit: TAB BOOKS Inc., 1989.
