*Sorry, if you're looking for news on the Democratic Primary or the California State Fair, this isn't it. Go back and refine your search. The Pentagon is developing autonomous battlefield robots for combat.
I worry that
1. Americans will be over-eager to accept anything they think will diminish the need to put soldiers in harm's way.
2. Target designation is at least as significant stumbling-block as autonomous overland navigation.
3.Once technical difficulties are worked out, we will still face the moral and ethical difficulties of employing an expendable fighting force against human foes.
You have undoubtedly heard of the Pentagon-sponsored race in the desert where university researcher, gearheads, and hackers compete to get a car from point A to point B without driver or remote control over a designated route.
The idea is that the military wants an autonomous vehicle to navigate unknown terrain in battle. The races started in 2004, and for a while, no entrant managed to even finish the course. Some died of engine failure ten feet in and some wandered away from the course half-a-mile from the finish line. Eventually, though, some entrants did finish and it has since become a genuine race. Last year, five entrants crossed the finish line. This year, first place gets a US$2,000,000 prize. The top twenty (of thirty-six entrants) go on to compete again in November.
Turns out, the Pentagon is looking for urban navigation capabilities as well as desert.
The robotic vehicles will have to follow California traffic law while performing such tasks as merging into traffic, making sharp turns and avoiding obstacles such as utility poles, trees and parked cars -- without the help of humans or remote control.
At this point, maybe you're wondering where all this is headed - what the pentagon intends to do with the winners' technologies?
Meet MULE - (Multifunction Utility/Logistics and Equipment Vehicle)
I found this on IGN, a gaming site. The Pentagon means to put robots in combat alongside conventional infantry. Some of you may have the initial reaction "Hurray! Robots can take the risk so our soldiers don't have to." Note, though, that these robots will be fighting alongside conventional soldiers. These descendants of technology that was running off the road not so long ago are now being sized up to wear machine guns and anti-tank missiles. Friendly fire is already the biggest killer of our forces overseas and I worry that this technology may take a while to get the kinks worked out. Moreover, assuming that we can quickly develop a means to designate allied soldiers so that the MULE won't shoot them, how much longer will it take to teach them to differentiate between crazy old ladies with George Bush effigies and teenage boys with rocket-propelled grenade launchers?
Don't get me wrong - I'm in favor of technological development and in favor of military technology in general. I believe that the United States' absurdly overwhelming military might keeps us from having to wipe out unwitting followers of a bunch of dictators who might otherwise do dumb stuff they shouldn't. I even like that the Pentagon sponsored a contest and made a gameshow of military technology development. This will undoubtedly save us all some money.
I also feel though, that autonomous target designation is a scary bucket of worms. The robot must choose enemy combatants from an array of friendly forces, bystanders, enemy combatants, inanimate objects, and more. With the perennial uncertainty of cheap farm labor, robotics researchers have been working for years to develop a machine that can identify and harvest ripe apples without damaging them or picking green ones.
The problems are by no means insurmountable. We will put robots on the battlefield. There will be technical problems that cause unwanted deaths. We will overcome those technical problems. These are things I'm sure of.
When we've worked out all the kinks, though, I fear that we will have a fighting force we can quickly dispatch to any part of the world which will suppress resistance and allow us to impose our will on our neighbors without fear of losing U.S. lives. I fear that we are on our way to a guilt-free conquest force.
My reading of science-fiction literature has trained me to consider the moral and ethical implications of unlikely situations brought upon civilization by the advancement of technology. Now, the U.S. military is forcing me to apply that training.
I ask you to consider this: If we'd had MULEs in time for the first Gulf War, wouldn't we have used them? Would we have used them in Vietnam? How much sooner would we have entered World War II if we hadn't feared for American lives? The Spanish-American War? The Mexican-American "War?"
More importantly, what wars have we simply not fought because we couldn't afford the loss of life?
What wars might we fight in the future because - well, Hell - why not? We got the MULEs!
Battlefield robots will soon be a reality that some people will rejoice in and others will bemoan. Technical difficulties will arise and be overcome. Ethical concerns over their use will outlive all my readers.
*I made the disclaimer at the outset that this was not an article about the Democratic Primaries or the mule racing at the California State Fair. Likewise, if you were looking for stories about a (non-military) combative mule, you were probably looking for this.
