The promise (?) of the warbots

I once heard a story about an instructor in a large lecture class who was approached by a student saying she loved the class but had a job interview that conflicted with the meeting time. Could she come to class at the beginning, turn on a tape recorder in her seat, go to the interview, and fetch the recorder after the class? The instructor thought about it for a moment and said, sure, go ahead. She did, and all worked out well. 

A student sitting next to the tape recorder caught on to what was happening. This student brought a tape recorder to the next class, turned it on, left, and came back later. 

Another student saw the same thing, and did it himself. And another and another.

One day near the end of the semester the dean was walking past the open classroom door. He couldn't see the front of the lecture hall but could hear the lecturer's voice. The dean could see that most of the seats were empty. Curious, he stuck his head in the door and was surprised to discover that every seat had a tape recorder in it. The dean then realized there was no lecturer at the front of the room, only another tape recorder.

I thought of this story in the context of recent developments in the technology of unmanned weapons. About thirty years ago, aerial drones began taking over much reconnaissance of the battlefield. More recently drones have been used to deliver weapons. And drones have been developed to counter other drones. We're not far from a moment comparable to that in the lecture hall. In this case, drones would fight other drones, leaving humans on the sidelines.

To many people, this automated battlefield sounds like a nightmare. Robots and computers fighting our wars? What would keep them from going rogue and turning the weapons on us? Anyway, in every battle there is collateral damage, and if people are apt to be killed, other people ought to be in the loop of responsibility.

But what if the battlefield were entirely automated? What if it were strictly drones against drones? What if whole wars could be fought entirely with drones? Leave to humans the responsibility to declare war, but then turn it over to the machines. The winner of the war would be the side with the best drones. Nobody would have to get hurt.

I realize there would be all sorts of problems with implementation. But consider it a thought experiment. And consider the historical precedents pointing in this direction.

In the old days, armies fought other armies until one was triumphant. The winning army would proceed to slaughter and enslave the population of the defeated side. Over time, rules evolved to distinguish combatants from noncombatants. The former would fight the former, and both sides would leave the latter alone. These rules were often broken, but their mere existence was a step in the direction of rendering warfare more humane.

Rules about treating prisoners of war emerged. When one side found itself in an untenable position, its soldiers could surrender and expect not to be killed. The key point was that war was no longer necessarily a fight to the death. 

Changes in weapons technology increased the distance between warriors. In the most ancient battles, soldiers fought hand to hand. Javelins and arrows later provided some space between belligerents. Firearms increased the space. By the early twentieth century, artillery could hurl shells eighty miles. Airplanes added vertical space between attackers and targets, and rockets put oceans and continents between shooters and those shot at. 

Sometimes the weapons didn't have to be used to coerce the people in the crosshairs. America's advantage in nuclear weapons caused Nikita Khrushchev to pull Soviet missiles out of Cuba under John Kennedy's threat. The existence of Soviet and Chinese nuclear weapons kept the United States from invading North Vietnam during the Vietnam war.

So the idea of pulling humans back from the front lines isn't novel. Neither is the practice of accepting a technological verdict in international conflict.

In the biblical book of Samuel, the Philistines and the Israelites were about to go into battle. The Philistines sent their champion, the giant Goliath, to challenge the champion of the Israelites to a one-on-one contest. The idea was that the outcome of this mano-a-mano would determine the outcome of the battle. The rest of the armies would be spared. David stepped forward for the Israelites and slew Goliath with a sling-propelled stone. The Philistines accepted the defeat.

Standards of truth in religious texts are different from those applied to historical accounts. Maybe things didn't happen as Samuel said. But the idea is plausible and attractive enough that the story has resonated down the centuries.

Let's suppose the Taiwan question isn't settled for another fifteen years. Suppose drone technology continues to advance. In 2040, the crisis comes to a head. China wants to control Taiwan. Taiwan doesn't want to be controlled. Suppose the United States remains committed to the defense of Taiwan. A conventional war for Taiwan would destroy much of what makes the island valuable to either side.

China launches drone strikes, which are countered by American drone defenses. The drone war rages until one side wins control of the region around Taiwan.

Would the people of Taiwan accept the verdict of the drone war? Would the loser of the China-America contest accept it? Both China and America would still have nuclear weapons in reserve. But would either consider Taiwan important enough to fight a general nuclear war over?

I don't know the answer to these questions. Wars are not merely exercises of reason. The blood sacrifice of war serves purposes that don't show up on balance sheets of territory and resources won or lost. You can't make heroes and martyrs of robots.

But you can make cannon fodder out of them, so to speak. Better them than humans, who have been cannon fodder for too long.