Arguments For

Synopsis

  1. ACCURACY: computers are reliable for precision. human error eliminated.
  2. SPEED: computers can process information faster than humans.
  3. SAFETY: robots doing risky jobs instead of humans, fewer casualties involved.
  4. HIGHER LEVEL OF PROTECTION: there are some measures of protection that can be carried out by autonomous weapons that are just humanly impossible (Brilliant Pebbles concept).
  5. EFFICIENCY: less supervision, decreased manpower requirements.

What have been the primary motivating arguments for the continued development of autonomous weapons?

Many supporters of the Autonomous Weapons movement in the American military point to the unpopular deaths of American soldiers in questionable conflicts (and the ensuing political fallout) as a significant driving force behind the almost obsessive drive toward increasingly complex and autonomous weapons. In response to this, for the last twenty years, the Pentagon has pursued a policy of reducing the need for humans to participate in actual combat. General William Westmoreland was "confident that the American people expect this country to take full advantage of its technology--to welcome and applaud the developments that will replace wherever possible the man with the machine" ( CPSR Newsletter , Chapman). Thus, the primary goal of implementing autonomous weaponary seems to be to save human lives. Ostensibly, this philosophy is touted as "Nothing but the best" for American soldiers, but critics such as Chapman remind that this policy also "leaves soldiers at the mercy of the reliability of complex high technology weapons systems, with diminishing control over their own fate" ( CPSR Newsletter , Chapman). Thus, a Catch-22 is immediately obvious. While the goal of autonomous weapons is to reduce human involvement in the battlefield, sometimes they are too successful and can eliminate a critical element of human control.

Several other strategic reasons are often cited for the continued funding of the research and development of autonomous weapons. Assuming a Cold War philosophy, many American military strategists perceived high technology as the most viable solution for equalizing the Soviet numerical superiority. Consider, for example, the NATO-Warsaw Pact balance. By the 1980's, the Soviet Union maintained a clear numerical superiority in conventional weapons (sometimes a two to one or three to one advantage), and at least equaled the U.S. in terms of nuclear firepower. This reduced the credibility of the "massive response" nuclear response policy held by U.S. administrations since World War II. The "massive response" assumption was that the U.S. would retaliate with nuclear weapons against a less well-equipped nuclear foe. Since this policy seemed less and less viable against the threat of an equally massive Soviet counter attack, the United States and its Allies found it neccessary to either increase the effectiveness or number of its conventional forces.

Since it was unlikely that the U.S. or its Allies would be able to match the production numbers of the Soviet industry, the Defense Department adopted a policy of developing an advanced military based on computer technology. It was in this arena that the Soviets were the least advanced in--Soviet technology is thought to be at least 5-7 years behind that of the United States, Japan, and Europe ( CPSR Newsletter , Chapman). The seeds for autonomous weapons were thus planted.

Another motivation for reducing the human presence on the battlefield is related to the continued decline of draftable males. In 1980, there was a total of ~10.7 million males aged 15-19. Today, that figure is closer to 8.6 million youths, a substantial drop of 20% ( CPSR Newsletter , Chapman). Furthermore, due to advances in medical technology, the American population is growing older. By the year 2000, it is expected that more than half of American men will be over the age of 40 (far older than the optimal age for military service) (Belling).

Furthermore, it is also clear that autonomous weapons could operate more effectively than human soldiers in hazardous battlefield conditions resulting from nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. Accordingly, autonomous weapons might be better deployed in regions where human forces are traditionally limited: space, and extreme arctic, desert, or underwater environments, for example.