Terminators. I love 'em. On screen at least (even the much maligned Terminator Salvation). And those of you with an interest in such matters will know that there is an increasing trend in the military forces of the developed world to weaponise machines so that they can do the fighting instead of human soldiers.
So we are gradually moving towards robotised armies and with that, comes a debate as to whether machines should ever be empowered to decide for themselves whether to kill a human being. Currently, that decision is beyond the ability of machine systems - deciding whether an object is human or not is a step that is still being tackled - but in time, no doubt the problem will be solved.
Each month drone attacks by Predator strike craft take place in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen or Pakistan, killing alleged terrorists and their allies. Often civilians are killed in these attacks too and the incidents take up few column inches in reports by the Western media. There is no outcry, no mass protests, no campaign against these attacks. And when we think about the future of war, we need to think about that which goes along with it - public opinion - shaped by what is reported in newspapers, on the internet and TV. War does not survive without the propaganda to support it.
If war is to be waged increasingly with automated craft like the Predator drones and their robotic successors, then what will that do to the perception of military campaigns? There is huge public concern in the UK over the deaths of around 200 soldiers who have been lost since the Afghan campaign started in 2002, but for an operation which began eight years ago these losses are relatively light in military terms, considering the length of the campaign.
So if we fast forward to 2025, when the US has achieved Full Spectrum Dominance and has in place a more robotic army - well within the scope of its military forward planning by the way - what then for our perception of war? If Allied casualties remain light in future wars - then who is going to oppose distant operations against people who are perceived to be terrorists - whether or not they are in reality. And what of the innocent civilians inevitably killed and injured by remote drones?
War, whether fought by humans or machines, is an anachronism, a lesson in stupidity and failure. Each year in the UK, on the 11th November, we have Armistice Day to remember those lost in various wars for 'freedom' against whoever happens to have been the enemy at the time. Solemn ceremonies are repeated year after year, public silences are held and then the world turns and goes back to the same practices that lead to wars in the first place. Lies are told by governments, patriotism is sold to naive young people, lives are given, the media huffs and puffs, atrocities take place at home and in distant lands, body bags are filled and nothing - ever - is learned.
So the debate about whether machines should be enabled to kill is, in a way, the wrong debate. The debate needs to be about how we end war, how we end terrorism as a weapon of the dispossessed, how we cooperate with those who are different to us, how we share precious resources.
One planet and like it or not, we have to share it.
Comments