UAVs and UCVs: Removing the human element?

A recruitment advert for the UK army has caught my eye recently. The advert (available at www.armyjobs.mod.uk) depicts an exercise in which a young soldier pilots an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) on a reconnaissance mission in support of a troop of infantry soldiers. What initially caught my eye was the controller the young soldier is using to guide the UAV. Anyone familiar with modern games consoles will notice that the controller bears a striking resemblance to that used with the Microsoft X-Box.

I heard many years ago that those engaged in developing new weapons systems were considering modelling control systems on those used with popular games consoles. The idea behind the plan (as I understand it) was that young men who have spent many years playing on games consoles have motor skills and coordination relating to the particular control systems of the consoles that take years to develop. Thus, designing the control systems of new weapons systems in this way shortens the time it takes to train young soldiers in the levels of proficiency required for effective operation.

When considered philosophically, this opens up a debate as to the ethics of the level of exposure to the reality of combat (with all its blood and gore) that young soldiers experience. In sum; is it right to make modern warfare feel more like a game to young soldiers? Extrapolating from this, one reaches the question of unmanned military vehicles in general, in particular unmanned combat vehicles (UCVs), and whether reducing the human element of decision making in military operations risks removing the capability of commanders to ensure that an element of ethics is included in such decision making.

The development and deployment of UAVs is now fairly advanced. This is in part boosted by the fact that UAVs are recognised as having uses beyond the military, with the trade association UAVS (www.uavsuk.com) boasting uses from oceanographic monitoring to herd management. The (somewhat natural) progression from UAVs being pursued by the arms industry currently, however, takes unmanned vehicles from reconnaissance to deadly combat, raising a whole new spectrum of ethical questions.

The only current deployments of armed UCVs (that I know of) consist of unmanned bomb disposal vehicles fitted with an automatic weapon and currently deployed in Iraq. Such vehicles are unlikely to be the primary weapon in a given combat situation as their current primary purpose is bomb disposal (with potential for other future uses such a rescuing injured soldiers from the line of fire). Crucially, the currently deployed unmanned systems have no autonomy whatsoever, with all commands coming from a human source. Planned future deployments of different vehicles, however, suggest that the US and UK militaries intend to press ahead with robotic combat of a more autonomous and direct form.

The two most interesting (and potentially disturbing) systems currently in development are BAE System's Black Knight (for the US military) and Taranis (for the UK military) programmes. Black Knight is in the testing stage of development and is a remote controlled armoured vehicle, mounted with a machine gun, which is capable of autonomous decision making with regards movement and information gathering, but which requires a human order to fire its weapon. The Taranis project has just begun and aims to deliver research that will make possible the aim of an unmanned fighter-bomber aircraft, capable of hitting targets on the ground and defending itself in the air.

My initial concerns about these two projects, and their implications, regard (as mentioned above) the potentially negative effect unmanned combat has on the likelihood of effective ethical decision making in combat situations. Whilst the Black Knight requires a human order to fire, distancing soldiers from the arena of combat will surely reduce their ability to assess a situation effectively. I fail to see how a robotic vehicle can relay enough information to soldiers to fully replicate the decision-making environment of being fully involved in the theatre of combat. Of course, it may be that removing the operator from the immediate theatre of combat will allow for calmer and more reasoned decision-making. However, I am concerned that weapons development undertaken under the political pressure of relatively large-scale casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan will not sufficiently take into account the imperative that civilian lives must be given precedence over those of professional soldiers.

My concerns over the Taranis project differ slightly. While I recognise that there may be little difference in targeting between a mission where a manned aircraft is sent to destroy a pre-determined strategic target and one where an unmanned aircraft is sent to destroy a pre-determined strategic target, I still have two concerns. Firstly, I am reminded of an anecdote (which I must note I never managed to independently verify) that was relayed to me whilst in the city of Nablus in the West Bank. On a visit to a pile of rubble that used to be a Palestinian Authority building, I was told that the Israeli pilot who's ordinance destroyed the building was jailed by a military tribunal for refusing to drop a second bomb on the site through fear of killing members of a crowd of civilians that had gathered to survey the wreckage. Presuming this incident did happen, would an unmanned aircraft simply have bombed the target a second time in ignorance of the gathered crowd? Secondly, if the Taranis project leads to a successful deployment, how tempted will military commanders be to deploy such devices in close-quarters tactical combat situations, without predetermined targets, which are more much more dangerous for pilots and therefore present a better opportunity to protect UK military personnel?

To conclude, it is important to recognise that there is a more general concern that should be aired with regards the development of new weapons systems of any type. Due in part to issues of confidentially with regards new weapons systems, there is very little democratic over-sight in the development stages. The result is that by the time oversight is made easier multiple millions have been spent, thus making the decision to scrap a weapons system due to ethical concerns politically very difficult.