The birds may be watching you – and that’s not paranoia. A new surveillance drone dressed up as an avian predator and with the same flight performance is being marketed to armies across the globe. RT’s Sara Firth went to check it out.
Lethal Autonomous Robot: Why America Wants Drones That Can Kill Without Humans
Scientists, engineers and policymakers are all figuring out ways drones can be used better and more smartly, more precise and less damaging to civilians, with longer range and better staying power. One method under development is by increasing autonomy on the drone itself.
Eventually, drones may have the technical ability to make even lethal decisions autonomously: to respond to a programmed set of inputs, select a target and fire their weapons without a human reviewing or checking the result. Yet the idea of the U.S. military deploying a lethal autonomous robot, or LAR, is sparking controversy. Though autonomy might address some of the current downsides of how drones are used, they introduce new downsides policymakers are only just learning to grapple with.
The basic conceit behind a LAR is that it can outperform and outthink a human operator. “If a drone’s system is sophisticated enough, it could be less emotional, more selective and able to provide force in a way that achieves a tactical objective with the least harm,” said Purdue University Professor Samuel Liles. “A lethal autonomous robot can aim better, target better, select better, and in general be a better asset with the linked ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] packages it can run.”
Though the pace for drone strikes has slowed down — only 21 have struck Pakistan in 2013, versus 122 in 2010 according to the New America Foundation — unmanned vehicles remain a staple of the American counterinsurgency toolkit. But drones have built-in vulnerabilities that military planners still have not yet grappled with. Last year, for example, an aerospace engineer told the House Homeland Security Committee that with some inexpensive equipment he could hack into a drone and hijack it to perform some rogue purpose.
Drones have been hackable for years. In 2009, defense officials told reporters that Iranian-backed militias used $26 of off-the-shelf software to intercept the video feeds of drones flying over Iraq. And in 2011, it was reported that a virus had infected some drone control systems at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada, leading to security concerns about the security of unmanned aircraft.
It may be that the only way to make a drone truly secure is to allow it to make its own decisions without a human controller: if it receives no outside commands, then it cannot be hacked (at least as easily). And that’s where LARs, might be the most attractive.
Though they do not yet exist, and are not possible with current technology, LARs are the subject of fierce debate in academia, the military and policy circles. Still, many treat their development as inevitability. But how practical would LARs be on the battlefield?
Heather Roff, a visiting professor at the University of Denver, said many conflicts, such as the civil war in Syria, are too complex for LARs. “It’s one thing to use them in a conventional conflict,” where large militaries fight away from cities, “but we tend to fight asymmetric battles. And interventions are only military campaigns — the civilian effects matter.”
Roff says that because LARs are not sophisticated enough to meaningfully distinguish between civilians and militants in a complex, urban environment, they probably would not be effective at achieving a constructive military end– if only because of how a civilian population would likely react to self-governing machines firing weapons at their city. “The idea that you could solve that crisis with a robotic weapon is naïve and dangerous,” she said.
Any autonomous weapons system is unlikely to be used by the military, except in extraordinary circumstances, argued Will McCants, a fellow at the Brookings Saban Center and director of its project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World. “You could imagine a scenario,” he says, “in which LAR planes hunted surface-to-air missiles as part of a campaign to destroy Syria’s air defenses.” It would remove the risk to U.S. pilots while exclusively targeting war equipment that has no civilian purpose.
But such a campaign is unlikely to ever happen. “Ultimately, the national security staff,” he said, referring to personnel that make up the officials and advisers of the National Security Council, “does not want to give up control of the conflict.” The politics of the decision to deploy any kind of autonomous weaponry matters as much as the capability of the technology itself. “With an autonomous system, the consequences of failure are worse in the public’s mind. There’s something about human error that makes people more comfortable with collateral damage if a person does it,” McCants said.
That’s not to say anyone is truly comfortable with collateral damage. “They’d rather own these kinds of decisions themselves and be able to chalk it up to human error,” McCants said. Political issues aside, B.J. Strawser, assistant professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, says that LARs simply could not be used effectively in a place like Syria. “You’d need exceedingly careful and restrictive ROEs [rules of engagement], and I worry that anyone could carry that out effective, autonomous weapon or not,” he said.
“I don’t think any actor, human or not, is capable of carrying out the refined, precise ROEs that would enable an armed intervention to be helpful in Syria.”
This is a copy of the full article provided by the Defense One
(Reuters) – Turkey’s $4 billion order for a Chinese missile defense system is a breakthrough for China in its bid to become a supplier of advanced weapons, even though opposition from Washington and NATO threatens to derail the deal. The winning bid from the China Precision Machinery Import and Export Corp (CPMIEC) to deliver its FD-2000 air defense missile system in a joint production… Read more →
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned against working with the Iranian government.
In a speech to the UN General Assembly, he described President Hassan Rouhani as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”.
He said Israel would not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons, even if it had to stand alone on the issue.
Iran replied that it had no intention of developing nuclear weapons, and called Mr Netanyahu’s comments “extremely inflammatory”.
There has recently been a thaw in relations between the US and Iran, with Mr Rouhani and US President Barack Obama recently speaking on the phone together – the first top-level conversation between the two countries for more than 30 years.
But Mr Obama assured Mr Netanyahu on Monday that the use of force was still on the table in dealing with Tehran’s nuclear programme.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Javed Zarif responded by criticising Mr Obama for what he termed “flip-flopping” on negotiations between the two nations.
In his address to the UN, Mr Netanyahu said Israel’s future was threatened by a “nuclear-armed” Iran, and urged other nations to keep up sanctions against the country.
He accused Mr Rouhani of having the same goal as his more hard-line predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
“Ahmadinejad was a wolf in wolf’s clothing. Rouhani is a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” Mr Netanyahu said.
BBC has the full article
Iranian President Hossan Rouhani is considering resuming flights between Tehran and the US for the first time in more than three decades, in another gesture of rapprochement between the two countries. “The president issued an order to study how it would be possible to establish direct flights between Iran and the United States to resolve the transportation problems of Iranians… Read more →
On the heels of criticism over his handling of the stand-off with Syria, President Obama is facing pressure from Congress to stand his ground with Iran — in the run-up to the U.N. General Assembly session in New York where Hassan Rowhani will make his debut visit as Iran’s president. Rowhani has sent signals over the last few weeks that… Read more →
(CNN) – Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has suggested that some outside governments may urge rebels to attack international inspectors sent into war-fractured country to secure its arsenal of chemical weapons.
“There might be countries that might ask the terrorists to attack the inspectors to prevent them from doing their job, and blame the Syrian government,” he said in an interview aired Sunday by Chinese state broadcaster CCTV.
“At this point, this remains just a possibility and we cannot know until the inspectors arrive in Syria,” al-Assad said.
Syria submitted an initial declaration to the world’s chemical weapons watchdog last week outlining its inventory of the munitions. The move was part of a deal forged earlier this month by the United States and Russia to begin Syria’s chemical disarmament.
CNN has the full article
Syrian President Bashar Assad, in an exclusive interview with Fox News, claimed he is fully committed to carrying out a plan to turn over and destroy his government’s chemical weapons — while continuing to deny responsibility for last month’s deadly chemical weapons attack despite new evidence that officials say implicates the Assad regime.
Assad acknowledged that his government has chemical weapons. “It’s not a secret anymore,” he said, referencing his government’s decision to join the international Chemical Weapons Convention.
Fox News has the full article
After Syria deal, int’l community may shift its pressure towards Israel to follow suit by conducting a chemical weapons handover. The United States-Russian deal for the destruction of Syria’s huge chemical weapon stocks caused Israelis to breathe an audible sigh of relief. Many expected that a US strike would push either Syria or its ally Hezbollah to retaliate by attacking… Read more →
Israel has never confirmed or denied possession of nuclear weapons, but according to new report by US experts it has at least 80 operative warheads and has enough material to produce up to 190 more. In a report published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, nuclear weapon proliferation experts Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen assess that Israel… Read more →