"Friend of Humans": An Argument for Developing Autonomous Weapons Systems

Abstract

New eras don't come about because of swords; they're created by the people who wield them.- Nobuhiro WatsukiIntroduction1With the introduction of robots2 to the battlefield, critics and activists have raised doubts that echo a long history of opposition to landmines, aviation, submarines, and nuclear technologies.3 War, however, is unavoidable, and weapons technology advancement is an inevitable consequence. Humanity's inability to live at peace has led combatants to seek enhanced weapons and strategies to defeat their adversaries more effectively.4 More advanced weaponry never reduces humanity's propensity for violence. As Clausewitz notes, [t]he tendency to destroy the adversary, which lies at the bottom of the conception of War, is in no way changed or modified through the progress of civilization.5 While this tendency is a sad commentary on human nature, weapons development also provides a hidden opportunity to safeguard against unnecessary destruction and loss of life.Technological advancement of weapons has led to better humanitarian protection for civilians not involved in conflicts. Despite the horrific exception of weapons of mass destruction, weapons development has also led to improved accuracy. For example, in World War II, aerial bombing campaigns resulted in devastating civilian causalities because air crews were not able to control the delivery of bombs with any effective precision. This resulted in civilian casualty estimates of up to 67 percent.6 In Vietnam, aerial bombing accounted for more than 50,000 North Vietnamese civilian deaths by 1969.7 In more recent conflicts, however, precision-guided munitions using mitigation methods are more effectively delivered on target, reducing the likelihood of collateral damage.8 For example, in 2011, NATO aircraft conducted 17,939 armed sorties in Libya, employing approximately 7,700 precision-guided munitions.9 The UN International Commission of Inquiry on Libya concluded that only 60 civilians were killed and 55 injured.10 With the introduction of drones to the battlefield over the past decade, however, some argue that their precision fares no better than manned aircraft.11 Stated differently, the highly technical capabilities of drones do not guarantee surgical precision and the minimization of civilian casualties.12 Nevertheless, the U.S. military is touting the utilization of robotic technology or autonomous weapons systems (AWS) as the next generation of weapons development in warfare.Despite technological advancements, critics argue that ongoing AWS development and eventual full-scale use would actually increase loss of civilian life and widespread destruction, based in part on concerns fueled by Western literature and films that depict robotic machines turning on their creators.13 These concerns are compounded by civilian causalities borne from drone strikes in areas such as Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.14 Their focused criticisms revolve around the idea that mere robotic employment on the battlefield is legally, ethically, and morally unsupportable. For example, Human Rights Watch (HRW) released a report concluding that AWSs, by their very nature, shock the public conscience and will dehumanize warfare.15 HRW, along with several other noteworthy participants, including roboticist Noel Sharkey, went on to release a separate report positing that AWSs will undermine Human Rights Law by depriving people of the rights to life, remedy, and dignity.16 In contrast, AWS proponents note that such preemptive criticisms have actually detracted from healthy debate regarding the potential utility of AWS development. They also argue that AWSs would actually be more humane than human soldiers and would neither be programmed nor armed with the capacity for widespread destruction.Notwithstanding either side of the debate, governments continue to develop AWSs as part of their national defense strategies, driven largely by two forces: public opinion and fiscal considerations. …