By Jörg Blech
One of those machines, BigDog, provides a sense of how far robotics has come technologically. The headless device feels its way as it moves forward. A built-in computer and internal sensors ensure that BigDog remains firmly on all fours, even when given a firm kick in the side. The robot, developed by Boston Dynamics, will likely begin its military career as a packhorse.
At a show last week at Webster Field, a military base in Maryland, a craft with a diameter of only 33 centimeters (13 inches) could be seen flying through the air and landing on spring-like legs. US troops in Iraq are currently testing about 20 of these so-called Micro Air Vehicles, which are made by Honeywell Aerospace. The soldiers can either control the drone with a joystick or program it to run on automatic pilot. To do so, they call up a digital map of their surroundings on a computer screen and click on the target. The drone then uses GPS to locate the target.
An even more impressive device on display at Webster Field was a seven-meter (23-foot) helicopter called Fire Scout. Instead of a cockpit, the unmanned helicopter has a windowless face that covers a Cyclops-like eye: a laser device that enables Fire Scout to land on its own, even on the tight deck space available on smaller warships. Fire Scout, of which US manufacturer Northrop Grumman has only produced two prototypes, is still unarmed. But that too will change, says engineer Doug Fronius: "There are definite plans to integrate weapons into the system."
Northrop Grumman is also developing an unarmed stealth fighter, the X-47, which the company expects to perform its first fully automated landing on a moving aircraft carrier in 2011. "By removing the pilots, we enable the device to remain airborne for an additional 10 hours or more," says Tighe Parmenter of Northrop Grumman. "To program an enemy mission, all you need is a keyboard and a mouse." In early August the US Navy awarded the company a contract worth $635.8 million to develop the fighter drones.
In general, airborne robotic devices are the vanguard among military robots. Unmanned flying objects have been used in war zones for some time, mainly for reconnaissance, but also to deliver deadly weapons. The two missiles that killed Al-Qaida terrorist Mohammed Atef in November 2001 as he was traveling to Kabul by car were fired from a Predator drone.
Fatal Decisions
Regardless of whether robots hurtle through the air or serve as mechanical infantrymen on the ground, until now human operators have decided whether they are permitted to shoot. The fear that the machines could suddenly start letting loose on their own troops is still too great.
Before Swords fires its first salvo at terrorists in Iraq, it needs the permission of two human operators. A supervisor presses a button on his remote control, which makes the machine gun operational. At the same time, another soldier must activate two red switches on this control unit to allow the robot to begin shooting.
However, it is only logical that decisions over life and death will increasingly be transferred to the machine -- just as soon as engineers have figured out how to overcome the problem of distinguishing between friends and foes. The first device likely to be capable of making this distinction could be installed by as early as this year along the 248-kilometer (154-mile) demilitarized zone between North and South Korea.
Samsung Techwin, a South Korean electronics firm, heads the consortium that developed the device, a black shooting robot. Equipped with video and ultrasound cameras, the robot can distinguish between trees and people and, according to Arkin, can independently open fire on anyone crossing the border illegally.
The Pentagon also wants to give the robots more freedom, arguing that the only way to enhance the fighting power of US troops is to enable a soldier to use several unmanned systems at the same time. This is only possible if the machines are allowed to make many of their decisions independently. According to a US Army document, both "lethal and non-lethal combat" could be possible as autonomous behavior.
The Future is Bright
The attack of the killer robots may sound like some macabre vision of the future. But robotics visionary Arkin also believes that there could be some positive aspects to the scenario. Contrary to many international treaties and declarations of intent, atrocities and human rights violations have always been part of wars in the past. A case in point is the torture scandal involving US troops at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.
Arkin believes that combat robots would not be tempted to commit such atrocities, thanks to their artificial conscience. "Robots could behave more humanely than human beings," he says. He plans to present a prototype of his morality software at a conference in September. Depending on the situation and its mission, a robot would select, from a wide range of options, the one action that it considers especially ethical -- even if it means refusing to obey a command.
Arkin also hopes that the mere presence of unmanned systems could make crises and conflicts more humane. Wherever their cameras are pointed, the robots create a record that could ultimately be open to public scrutiny. Soldiers can then expect everything they do to be captured on camera, an effective deterrent against those who seek to exact revenge and indulge their torture fantasies on prisoners.
Open Arms
In the meantime, the robots are being welcomed with open arms by their human fellow soldiers. The US Army will decide in October whether to deploy additional Swords robots in Iraq. If the soldiers had their way, they would get another 20 Swords, says Michael Zecca of the Picatinny Army Arsenal in New Jersey.
Soldiers are especially fond of the hundreds of unmanned robots that have been used for years as minesweepers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are credited with saving countless lives. The small tin soldiers are so valuable to the military that they are even promoted and decorated with medals. Whenever a mine detonates under one of the devices, soldiers prefer to repair the robot if at all possible, rather than have it replaced with a brand-new substitute.
At a military base in Yuma, Arizona, a colonel ordered soldiers to break off a test in which a robot was being repeatedly sent into a minefield -- because, so he said, it was inhumane.
Arkin sees an underestimated danger in this tendency among soldiers to anthropomorphize machines. In an extreme case, officers could become more attached to their robots than to the men and women they command. Then, so Arkin's tongue-in-cheek prediction, an officer might well issue an order like, "Tom, you go and see if the coast is clear -- the robot stays here!"
Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan
Post to other social networks:
Stay informed with our free news services:
| All news from SPIEGEL International | Twitter | RSS |
| All news from World section | RSS |
© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2007
All Rights Reserved
Reproduction only allowed with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH