(Fun Fact- Napoleon wasn't that short. It's all a myth stemming from the French measuring system back then being different from ours.)
With so many machines taking the places of soldiers on the battlefields, it seems more logical in many cases to simply make the super-powered, yet not very intelligent, machines. And this, I believe, is Singer's thought in this small section. But in my opinion these dumb super-machines are valuable because: why do we need them to have a mind if we still have ours?
If we look at society nowadays the increase in gaming is obvious. These military machines are imitating this trend. Singer mentions, "At the time of my visit, Foster-Miller was exploring replacing the controller with a Nintendo Game Boy-style controller, hooked up to virtual reality goggles. War is becoming increasingly like gaming, and likewise games like Modern Warfare and Call of Duty show how games are becoming more like war. I have even heard that soldiers use such games to prepare for war.
Although we can shrink them, we can't replace our military with an army of drones, because we will always need real people there when these robots fail. Additionally, we don't yet know how these robots will fare when they eventually have to fight against similar robots. My thought, however, is that the military personnel will be what's really changing. We will see a new demand in our armies and navies for people that can fix and program these robots to adapt them to battles, and for talented former-gamers that can adeptly control these machines. Singer mentions that soldiers, used to playing with remote controlled cars in their childhood, quickly learned how to control these robots. These are the kinds of people we will need in our armies of the future, essentially, gamers. They will be the ones with the experience, talent, and intelligence needed to use the weapons of the future. So, as Napoleon thought, it will be the mind that wins out. It will just be our minds. Basically, rise of the the nerds.
I don’t think it would be appropriate to think the ‘Rise of the Nerds’ as a time that will only exist with the takeoff of robot soldiers. The fact of the matter is it has already begun. Have we forgotten how three geeks pushed the mighty IBM from its throne or how the socially awkward student from Harvard built a social networking empire?
ReplyDeleteComing to your idea of changing soldiers, it does seem the future soldiers will be different.As you said: “We will see a new demand in our armies and navies for people that can fix and program these robots to adapt them to battles” But that does not mean that they will be programming geniuses. It is like saying that today’s soldiers know how to build their tanks. Such tasks are not done in the fields but in billion dollar research centers.
I suspect we'll see robots replace many duties, but the augmented human soldier will still be the "tip of the sword" if not the battering ram that kicks in the door.
ReplyDeleteI have videos of my nephew's unit training in live-fire exercises before they deployed to Iraq. Jim, a former Ranger, had to take some green "main army" soldiers and put them through drills kicking down doors, identifying friend from foe, and shooting...fast.
Imagine a SWORDS run by a geek in a trailer for that job. It knocks down the door, the human decides friend from foe while the robot gets the snot shot out of it. Calmly, he picks the insurgent holding a gun to a hostage's head. Boom. Game over.
When the area is pacified, human soldiers move in to do police work, with the SWORDS nearby to respond to snipers and sniff for bombs.
Given the American reluctance to lose soldiers in war, what would prevent my scenario from coming true?
I think that you cannot entirely replace the soldier.However, public opinion is ever growing against human casualties in war.this is one of the major reasons that US military establishment was forced to embrace the idea of unmanned weapon systems. In the future the soldier will be delegated to lower risk tasks, while the robots will be in the firing line. In such a situation I agree that the skill a soldier is expected to possess will change. Handling an interface will become infinitely more important than knowing how to handle an assault rifle.
ReplyDeleteI believe that robots "wired for war" is ideal. The biggest complaint about wars is the magnitude of human casualties and this would effectively be taken out of the equation. But an issue we have dealt with repeatedly is the unexpected consequences of technology. One, like Kerry said, we have no idea how the robots will actually act when faced with real situations. Humans can only predict so much and as we all know a robot is only a human creation. Two, the consequences of the effects this change would cause are completely unknown. Putting robots into war doesn't just shift war it completely changes it. The strategy; the weapons; and even the purpose shifts. As Elana mentioned in her comment on the other post, what does war become when humans are taken out? Is it even still war? How will this effect international relations? How will this effect the US economy? A lot of drastic changes can happen with the implanting of robots into war, and not necessarily good ones.
ReplyDelete