War without fear is not war
Rachel Dodd
Issue date: 2/19/07 Section: ViewPoint
- Page 1 of 1
| |
|
Featherstone's article, "The Coming Robot Army," was published in Harper's Magazine this month, explaining new military technology that would take the soldier out of harm's way and replace him with robots equipped with everything from M202 grenade launchers to video feed equipment.
But the American death toll is not the only one that will go down. The lives of enemy combatants will be preserved with other new technology, such as ray-guns and laser-firing satellites. The question is what kind of war would be created? Who would take responsibility for the deaths of enemy combatants when killed by robots?
Some advancements seem like diamonds in the hands of the American military but will we see them being implemented?
President Bush proposed Congress authorize 20,000 more troops to be deployed to Iraq, and another 4,000 Marines to be sent to Anbar Province. This week, I find out about ray-guns, radar and robots that could make this deployment unnecessary. I will tell you exactly what I am talking about.
Raytheon created a new prototype called LADS, laser area defense system, which could "successfully detonate 60-millimeter mortars at a range greater than 550 yards," the company said.
This means that war fighters would be protected against mortars, which is one of the most significant causes of death in the Iraq war. The machine will track and trace the trajectory of mortars and rockets with chemical-free lasers and shoot them out of the sky, thereby making it safe for the environment, as well as highly effective.
"LADS is highly mobile and has the capability to simultaneously engage multiple targets at tactically relevant ranges," Raytheon said. "The laser system is powered by a commercially available generator or grid electricity and provides an extremely inexpensive and almost infinite magazine for countering mortar and rocket threats."
The U.S. Army Material Systems Analysis Activity (AMSAA) has produced a similar weapon called CRAM, Counter Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar system. It can be used aboard naval warships and mounted on Humvees, using sensors to acquire targets and fire-control subsystems that predict the mortar's path. It then selects one or multiple targets, activates a warning system to alert troops, provides data to defeat the mortar, shoots up a laser beam head onto the mortar, and if needed, recalculates and changes course to take out the mortar, causing it to burst mid-air, saving the lives of our troops. Sounds like an idea that parents of troops can agree with.
The ray-gun, the most intriguing bit of advanced weaponry, is referred to by the military as an "active denial system." This hand-held gun shoots a laser beam at a target, burning the top 1/64th inch of skin at 130 degrees and causing the water molecules there to boil. This causes intense pain, but is actually non-lethal. That's right, it causes no casualties, it just causes people to feel like they are catching fire.
The weapon, expectedly to be dispersed by 2010, could be mounted on ships, Humvees, airplanes, helicopters and for ground operations. Even those against war could get on with this advancement, seeing that no one actually gets hurt.
Americans are always concerned about the American death toll. More troops died in Iwo Jima in one day than have been lost in the Iraq war. But that means nothing to Corporal Smith's mom back home in Yuma, Ariz.
Being a former Marine, I understand the concerns of fellow troops and I understand the concerns of American mothers and fathers. I have brothers and sisters who worried about me when I was in the desert. But who decides how many lives a war is worth? How many lives is this war worth? And is this how we measure the size and importance of wars?
Long gone are the days of the physically strong military that needed only to know how to march and shoot. Troops have to be smart these days. They have to know how to work with wires and electricity. They have to know geometry to plan safe ordnance strikes on one city block without as much as a shard of shrapnel hitting another. They have to be able to operate the newest technology in the most rugged terrain.
The most controversial of the new technology are the ground robots. Marine Corps Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) members developed the Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection System (SWORDS) robot, mounted with an M240 machine gun and a camera, to find a less dangerous way to draw out targets in caves in Afghanistan.
They can be used to disarm roadside Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), which are the most substantial cause of troop deaths in Iraq. It can also be loaded with grenades to be lobbed at enemy combatants.
This is the military we have built, molded over centuries. They have gotten faster, stronger, smarter, better. But if we replace them with machines, what will become of our superior military? Will they become our military?
What is the motivating factor behind all these robots and high-tech weapons? Is it to keep soldiers safe or save money?
I can't determine that. You probably can't determine that.
Don't think I am against our advancement, I am. But I am concerned that the consequences are more severe than many officials have considered.
Machines malfunction. Anyone who has ever fired a standard issue M16A2 service rifle knows how often they jam. And our military has been issuing those same rifles for decades.
Picture this: A robot is equipped with enough ammunition to take out a houseful of terrorists. It is directed into the home of any enemy combatant and instructed to eliminate all within.
Suddenly an unexpected child appears in the hallway. Because of radio interference, the video feed freezes and the operator of the robot is unaware of the arrival of the children. All are killed.
Who is responsible for that? Is it ethical? The Geneva Convention articles would surely have to be reviewed.
When Featherstone attend-ed a demonstration of how some of the new robots worked, he spoke to Cliff Hudson, the coordinator of robotics efforts for the Department of Defense. Hudson explained that the robots would operate like military dogs, sniffing out bombs and terrorists.
"It's not going to replace the soldier. It's going to be an added capability and enhancer," Hudson said to Featherstone.
The Gladiator is a six-wheeled armored car equipped with a machine gun and capable of carrying missiles that Carnegie Mellon National Robotics Engineering Center built for the Marines.
All it needs is a driver. Featherstone calls this person the "plug-and-play warrior. But will the operator be held responsible for enemy deaths when it was a robot that pulled the trigger? And if war is to be fought in this way, who will feel the emotional impact?
"Within our lifetime, robots will give us the ability to wage war without committing ourselves to the human cost of actually fighting a war," Featherstone said. "War will become a routine, a program."
Essentially, war could become a video game and the controls are in the hands of our soldiers. Then again, our soldiers would be safe at home with the war on a big screen television on the wall.
What would happen if we no longer feared the impact of war? Would it all be worth it? I worry about some of the answers I would get to that question.
It is not a question I am ready to answer. As a former Marine, I am compelled to ask myself, what is more important, human lives, American lives, or the ideals which we, as Americans and fighters, represent? Can and should humans be replaced by emotionless robots in the battlefield?
"Absent fear, war cannot be called war," Featherstone said. "A better name for it would be target practice."
Be the first to comment on this story