Military Robots Research Articles

The cubicle warrior: the marionette of digitalized warfare

In the last decade we have entered the era of remote controlled military technology. The excitement about this new technology should not mask the ethical questions that it raises. A fundamental ethical question is who may be held responsible for civilian deaths. In this paper we will discuss the role of the human operator or so-called ‘cubicle warrior’, who remotely controls the military robots behind visual interfaces. We will argue that the socio-technical system conditions the cubicle warrior to dehumanize the enemy. As a result the cubicle warrior is morally disengaged from his destructive and lethal actions. This challenges what he should know to make responsible decisions (the so-called knowledge condition). Nowadays and in the near future, three factors will influence and may increase the moral disengagement even further due to the decrease of locus of control orientation: (1) photo shopping the war; (2) the moralization of technology; (3) the speed of decision-making. As a result, cubicle warriors cannot be held reasonably responsible anymore for the decisions they make.

Killer robots: legality and ethicality of autonomous weapons

Military robots and other, potentially autonomous robotic systems such as unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs) and unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) could soon be introduced to the battlefield. Look further into the future and we may see autonomous micro- and nanorobots armed and deployed in swarms of thousands or even millions. This growing automation of warfare may come to represent a major discontinuity in the history of warfare: humans will first be removed from the battlefield and may one day even be largely excluded from the decision cycle in future high-tech and high-speed robotic warfare. Although the current technological issues will no doubt be overcome, the greatest obstacles to automated weapons on the battlefield are likely to be legal and ethical concerns. Armin Krishnan explores the technological, legal and ethical issues connected to combat robotics, examining both the opportunities and limitations of autonomous weapons. He also proposes solutions to the future regulation of military robotics through international law.

59328 Subsystem Synthesis Method based on Cartesian Coordinates for Unmanned Military Robot Multibody Dynamics Model(High Performance Formalisms and Computation)

An unmanned military robot has been developed in order to save human life in dangerous military missions. To test various control algorithms in the virtual reality environment, a real-time dynamics model for the unmanned military robot is necessary. The unmanned military robot consists of six identical independent suspension systems, a manipulator arm to detect mine, a gun module, and stabilized vision system. Since the unmanned military robot is operated on rugged field, high frequency excitation forces are transmitted into tires. In order to handle high frequency oscillatory problem, in this paper, the unmanned military robot model based on Cartesian coordinates subsystem synthesis method is introduced to adapt an implicit integration method. To verify the proposed subsystem formulation, bump run simulations are carried out by comparing the responses from the subsystem model with those from ADAMS reference model. To inspect efficiency, CPU time of the model based on the proposed formulation has also been compared with the one based on the conventional formulation.

Military frameworks: technological know-how and the legitimization of warfare

It is the elusive target of policymakers, ethicists and military strategists: the target of a ‘just war’. Since the advent of precision-guided munitions in the mid-1970s, commentators claimed that surgical-strike technology would advance the cause of jus in bello, ending the longstanding tension between effective military engagement and morality. Today, many policymakers accept that the ethical dilemmas that arise in the ‘fog of war’ can be negotiated by the technical precision of weaponry. This is, at best, only partially accurate. At worst, its misplaced optimism risks numbing the moral sense of strategists and, just as importantly, the sensibilities of the general populace. We argue that the development of precision guided munitions (PGM), stand-off weaponry and military robotics may force policymakers and strategists to experience new ethical tensions with an unprecedented sensitivity and may require them to make specific policy adjustments. In the move toward more quantitative approaches to political science and international affairs it is often forgotten that military ethics, and the ethics of military technologies, turn on the question of human judgment. We argue that the ethical implications of revolution in military affairs (RMA) are best investigated by way of a detailed discussion of the tenuous relationship between ethical decision-making and the workings of military technology.

It's war - but not as we know it [autonomous military robotics

Intelligent machines deployed on battlefields around the world-from mobile grenade launchers to rocket-firing drones-can already identify and lock onto targets without human help. The first three armed combat robots fitted with large-calibre machine guns deployed to Iraq last summer, manufactured by US arms maker Foster-Miller, proved so successful that 80 more are on order, says Sharkey. But, up to now, a human hand has been required to push the button or pull the trigger. Military leaders are quite clear that they want autonomous robots as soon as possible, because they are more cost- effective and give a risk-free war. To the extent that military robots can considerably reduce unethical conduct on the battlefield- greatly reducing human and political costs - there is a compelling reason to pursue their development as well as to study their capacity to act ethically, it reads.

The Way Forward in the World of Robotics

N. Sharkey exaggerated the dangers of robotics use in his Perspective on “The ethical frontiers of robotics” (19 December 2008, p. 1800). Although the number of child-minding robots has increased in some countries, such technology should perhaps be regarded as a special case of ubiquitous medical computing, smart homes, and telemedicine; these are sources of ethical challenges, to be sure, but they do not warrant preying on emotions by invoking threats of child neglect and abuse (1, 2). Intuitively, we also suspect that nannybots are not good for the psychological development of children left in their care, but until empirical research demonstrates this, we must suspend judgment; such research might, in fact, find no harm at all. Similarly, we are as horrified and angry as Sharkey is when non-combatants are harmed by military robots, but whether such devices generally increase or reduce the number of civilian casualties is also an empirical question.

The Way Forward in the World of Robotics

N. Sharkey exaggerated the dangers of robotics use in his Perspective on “The ethical frontiers of robotics” (19 December 2008, p. [1800][1]). Although the number of child-minding robots has increased in some countries, such technology should perhaps be regarded as a special case of ubiquitous medical computing, smart homes, and telemedicine; these are sources of ethical challenges, to be sure, but they do not warrant preying on emotions by invoking threats of child neglect and abuse ([ 1 ][2], [ 2 ][3]). Intuitively, we also suspect that nannybots are not good for the psychological development of children left in their care, but until empirical research demonstrates this, we must suspend judgment; such research might, in fact, find no harm at all. Similarly, we are as horrified and angry as Sharkey is when non-combatants are harmed by military robots, but whether such devices generally increase or reduce the number of civilian casualties is also an empirical question. The job of applied ethics is not limited to warning about worst-case scenarios. Rather, it must include the identification and analysis of challenges raised by new technologies and the identification of suitable precautions, constraints, and trade-offs required to protect safety, privacy, and liberty. Sharkey has made a start as regards robotics, but much more needs to be done. The agencies that fund these technologies should ensure that adequate resources are devoted to the analysis of concomitant ethical, legal, and social issues. 1. [↵][4]1. K. W. Goodman 1. K. W. Goodman , in Ethics, Computing, and Medicine: Informatics and the Transformation of Health Care, K. W. Goodman , Ed. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1998), pp. 1–31. 2. [↵][5]1. K. E. Himma, 2. H. T. Tavani 1. K. W. Goodman , in The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics, K. E. Himma, H. T. Tavani , Eds. (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2008), pp. 293–309. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1164582 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [5]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text

The Way Forward in the World of Robotics—Response

I thank Goodman and Einspruch for their thoughtful comments on my paper. I agree that the job of applied ethics should not be limited to worst-case scenarios, but I feel that the issues I raised about robotics in care and in the military need to be dealt with urgently before we sleepwalk into a world of neglect and indiscriminate killing. I disagree with Goodman and Einspruch's suggestion that we should wait for the empirical evidence before placing ethical constraints on the use of autonomous weapons. There is an ongoing and accelerating proliferation of military robots in research, development, and application. What evidence there is about the development of smart bombs and weapons technology since World War II indicates an increase rather than a decrease in the numbers of civilian casualties ([ 1 ][1]). I value empirical methods, but not when it comes to betting on the lives of innocent civilians. Moreover, I am doubtful as to the impact of empirical findings about noncombatant deaths. Until these weapons can be shown to discriminate between civilians and combatants, I believe that they belong in the same class as mines and sensor-fuzed weapons that have been banned by many countries. In addition, I do not regard child-minding robots “as a special case of ubiquitous medical computing, smart homes, and telemedicine.” It is the mobility and exploitation of the children's anthropomorphic projection to create bonding, trust, and attachment that makes robots different from other smart sensing systems. Again, I think that waiting for empirical research to demonstrate psychological harm to children is dangerous. Suspending judgment about possible harm when many empirical studies show the lasting effects of neglect is not a good option. Goodman and Einspruch and I agree that considerably more ethical appraisal is required before and at the time of developing new technologies rather than waiting to see the outcomes. History has taught us that once a technological genie is out of the bottle, we can't get it back in again. 1. [↵][2] 1. S. Peterson , “Smarter bombs still hit civilians,” The Christian Science Monitor, 22 October 2002 ([www.csmonitor.com/2002/1022/p01s01-wosc.html][3]). [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [3]: http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1022/p01s01-wosc.html

Effects of tactile cueing on concurrent performance of military and robotics tasks in a simulated multitasking environment

This study examined the concurrent performance of military gunnery, robotics control and communication tasks in a simulated environment. More specifically, the study investigated how aided target recognition (AiTR) capabilities (delivered either through tactile or tactile + visual cueing) for the gunnery task might benefit overall performance. Results showed that AiTR benefited not only the gunnery task, but also the concurrent robotics and communication tasks. The participants' spatial ability was found to be a good indicator of their gunnery and robotics task performance. However, when AiTR was available to assist their gunnery task, those participants of lower spatial ability were able to perform their robotics tasks as well as those of higher spatial ability. Finally, participants' workload assessment was significantly higher when they teleoperated (i.e. remotely operated) a robot and when their gunnery task was unassisted. These results will further understanding of multitasking performance in military tasking environments. These results will also facilitate the implementation of robots in military settings and will provide useful data to military system designs.

Flying squad [military robot

The MoD's Grand Challenge has produced a host of robots that aim to act as roving eyes for troops. The vehicles have range sensors as well as cameras to help them avoid obstacles. There might be six vehicles out there, so they have to be able to move automatically. But it is the soldiers who distinguish between threats. The system buzzes the soldier and tells them there is a human there. The soldier can then react. We are working on a follow-on generation to detect threats automatically.

The Ethics of Autonomous Military Robots

The U.S. military has started to construct and deploy robotic weapons systems. Although human controllers may still be monitoring the functioning of the technology, the next logical step is to transfer incrementally more of the decision-making power to the robots themselves. Thus, this article seeks to examine the ethical implications of the creation and use of "autonomous weapons systems."

Automated Killers and the Computing Profession

When will we realize that our artificial-intelligence and autonomous-robotics research projects have been harnessed to manufacture killing machines? This is not terminator-style science fiction but grim reality: South Korea and Israel have both deployed armed robot border guards, while other nations-including China, India, Russia, Singapore, and the UK-increasingly use military robots. Fully autonomous robots that make their own decisions about lethality appear high on the US military agenda. They benefit the US military by enabling a single battlefield soldier to initiate a large-scale robot attack from the air or on the ground.

U.S. Military Robotics Initiatives

U.S. Military Robotics Initiatives

Industry / research news

Approximately 30 industry, research, and military robot specialists met for five days in Alton, Virginia, in August 2004 to test their communication software in the second of three scheduled experiments named OPC. The messaging framework is the Joint Architecture for Unmanned Systems (JAUS). JAUS is sponsored by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (OUSD) for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.

A new generation of military robots

US military branches are undergoing a shift in the structure and missions that's designed to help them become lighter and more agile, able to move easily and quickly to hot spots. Long-range planning to prepare for modern warfare includes developing robotics for military use. For instance, the Army's Future Combat Systems program plans to make a third of its ground forces robotic within about 15 years. The army's 20-year plan envisions 10 steps of robotic development, starting with completely human-controlled systems and ending with autonomous, armed, cooperative robots. The Robotics Institute has developed a small, unmanned ground vehicle called a "throwbot" that can be tossed into buildings to gather and relay information back to soldiers before they enter the building. The institute is also developing larger robotic vehicles that can do reconnaissance and breaching missions, including a robotic helicopter that can generate 3D models from the air.

Military robots react to motion with IndigoVision’s VideoBridge technology

Military robots react to motion with IndigoVision’s VideoBridge technology

Future Warfare and the Decline of Human Decisionmaking

To date, most warfare has taken place within what Robert J. Bunker terms space, meaning the traditional four-dimensional battlespace that is discernible to the human senses. (1) In essence, war has always consisted of human beings running, dodging, and hurling things at each other, lately with the help of machinery. Even such revolutionary developments as gunpowder only enhanced our ability to throw things at enemies we could see and hear. The first crude examples of autonomous weapons were probably the early experiments by the US Navy and Sperry Gyroscope Company on unpiloted aircraft during the last years of the First World War. Then came the advent of electronics, especially radar, and warfare began to leave the realm of human senses. Ships and planes could fire on enemies that were no more than ghostly green images on cathode ray tube. Later came military robots such as cruise missiles that were able to autonomously execute missions formerly requiring manned systems. Advanced radar engagement systems enabled pilots to locate, identify, and destroy enemy aircraft without ever seeing them. Some robotic systems became even more independent, such as the Navy's Phalanx close-in air defense weapon, which is of autonomously performing its own search, detect, evaluation, track, engage, and kill assessment functions. (2) Thanks to advanced sensors and information processing, target recognition and identification methods are being develo ped to permit truly autonomous guided munitions. This includes munitions capable of autonomously engaging fixed and mobile ground targets, as well as targets in air and (3) Warfare has begun to leave space. A long step in this direction was taken in mid-2000 when the US Senate Armed Services Committee added $246.3 million to its version of the 2001 defense authorization bill to speed development of unmanned combat systems. The committee set two ambitious goals--within ten years, one third of all deepstrike aircraft would be unmanned; and within 15 years, one third of ground combat vehicles would operate without human beings on board. (4) At about the same time, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the US Army selected initial contractors for the Army's planned Objective Force. The concept calls for a network-centric, distributed force that will include manned command and control element/personnel carrier, robotic direct-fire system, robotic non-line of sight system, an all-weather robotic sensor system, coupled with other layered sensors.(5) According to Lieutenant Colonel John Blitch, program manager for DARPA's Tactical Mobile Robotics Program, We have spent lot of time and ene rgy analyzing employment concepts for portable robotic platforms over the last few years and are convinced of their revolutionary impact on dismounted warfare. (6) These initiatives and others are rapidly taking us to place where we may not want to go, but probably are unable to avoid. Once this progression of ever more capable machines began, the US armed forces, and those of other advanced countries, started down road that will probably remove warfare almost entirely from human hands. Several trends are contributing to this unsettling development, but the most important one is the rise of computer-driven information systems coupled with the proliferation of mobile autonomous and semi-autonomous systems (i.e. robots). The devices created by this coupling greatly increase the speed at which things happen, especially weapon effects and information processing. A much less noticed trend, the development of very cheap and very small military systems, will also help to move warfare even further out of space. In combination, these advances have synergistic effect. More and more aspects of warfighting are not only leaving the realm of human senses, but also crossing outside the limits of human reaction times. The effect of these trends is already being enhanced by the emergence of d irected energy weapons (DEWs) with their capacity for engagement at the speed of light. …