The following is a rather fragmented reflection on recent events, but I am not sure how to collect all of my thoughts on this.
Today the Washington Post published an article entitled “Army Prepares 'Robo-Soldier' for Iraq” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31968-2005Jan24.html) (the BBC did a similar article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4199935.stm) discussing the deployment of machine-gun laden remote control robots to Iraq this spring. This development brings the inhumanity of war to a new level.
By developing these remote control killing machines, the act of taking one’s life becomes a more distant and less meaningful act. War becomes a virtual-reality video game in which the value of human life is disregarded; soldiers are able to operate deadly machinery as they would a remote control car.
The discussion of the autonomy of these ‘soldiers’ is even more frightening. The Pentagon’s goal of creating robots that are able to “navigate rough terrain, avoid obstacles and make decisions about certain tasks on their own” is devastatingly frightening. For now Perceptek Inc, the developers of robotic systems for military use, claim that “there always will be a person in the loop” but this “problem” of autonomy discussed in yesterday’s article brings up questions as to the possibility of mistaking allies for enemies, and, equally important, demonstrates the disregard this war has for human life. By allowing machines to cause mass destruction and death we wipe the guilt from our hands, and become absent destroyers.
War is supposed to be hard: a last resort following extensive diplomacy and negotiation. Weapons that allow war to be performed through the actions of adolescent video games will allow decisions to enter war more likely and easy. The death of Iraqi citizens has already been unreported; their lives ignored. The enactment of video-game warfare further disregards the humanity of those we kill. I want my friends to be safe and to come home, but this is not the way to expedite the war.
The argument behind the development of SWORDS is that they will save both money and time: “They don’t need to be trained, fed or clothed. They can be boxed up and warehoused between wars. They never complain. And there are no letters to write home if they meet their demise in battle”. These comments completely disrespect the work of soldiers currently serving in the armed forces.
I know that these robots could save US lives, and perhaps I'm being horribly insensitive. It just seems to be that 1) avoiding war, 2) funding domestic social service programs (preventing people from having to enlist to pay for school, etc), and 3) taking care of veterans is a better way to do this. Why can't the killing just stop?
2 comments:
Creepy. Killing probably won't stop anytime soon as it is ingrained our nature. Survival of the fittest seems to be the law of the land and geopolitically American's are "the fittest", whatever that may mean. Our government will continue to do whatever it wants until someone forces it to change, that unfortunately is the sad truth.
Hit me up at bk6022a@american.edu if ya like
-Brent K
I am not sure how I feel about this. I'm trying to work more on the whole "seeing both sides" thing, since pigeonholing yourself to the extreme end of one side can be dangerous.
On the one hand, yes it will keep our soldiers safer, and the desire to do that is not inherently bad. ALL lives are valuable, and that includes those of the US troops. If we are going to say we value human life and dignity, that means we must value the lives of our own, even when we perceive the US as the "bad guy." I don't like this robo-soldier idea, but I am glad our troops will be safer.
On the other hand, I think it sends a terrible message to the rest of the world: "We want to kill people, but they're not worth a fair fight. And hey, now we can kill them 100% of the time we try!"
Also, each of these robots costs $1M (according to the BBC article Krissy emailed), and there are eighteen of them. Eighteen million dollars isn't much in the grand scheme of things, but it's still $18M that could have been put to better use. Plus think of the money that must have been poured into the development of these things, before the cost of production even figures in. All that money could have been invested in public education instead of being wasted on deadly toys.
To sum up, I'll just echo Krissy: Why can't the killing just stop?
Post a Comment