Robots as Weapons in Just Wars by Marcus Schulzke and Robots, Trust and War by Thomas W. Simpson both examine the inevitable clash between robotics and modern modes of warfare.

Authors Avatar by micah_johnson_92 (student)

Robot Warriors, a Trustworthy Alternative

        As the recent past has shown, the trend in modern warfare is towards asymmetric conflicts of guerilla groups against the technologically superior armies of industrialized nations.  Additionally, industrialized nations are increasingly researching and deploying robotic technology to aid their armed forces.  “Robots as Weapons in Just Wars” by Marcus Schulzke and “Robots, Trust and War” by Thomas W. Simpson both examine the inevitable clash between robotics and modern modes of warfare.  Both authors argue, for differing reasons, that fully autonomous robots are counter-productive in counter-insurgency operations because they cannot effectively win the hearts and minds of the local population.  Both authors were overly pessimistic in their analyses.  Armies consisting of primarily robot warriors can successfully wage counter –insurgency operations and  win the hearts, minds and respect of the local population.

        Both Simpson and Schulzke believe that autonomous robots, robots that are capable of complicated though processes, damage the “hearts and mind” approach to winning a counter-insurgency war.  Schulzke cited several examples of ways in which robots are inferior to human soldiers; humans “distribute food and medical care, and they build relations with community leaders” (Schulzke 304).  Additionally, “Local populations can therefore interpret the presence of foreign soldiers as something positive or negative depending on how the soldier acts”.  His analysis is a vast oversimplification; Schulzke too narrowly focuses  on human soldiers.  In reality, his quote should say that locals can interpret the presence of foreign influence rather than just soldiers.  Due to language barriers, robots could be programmed to be more effective at communicating with indigenous populations than humans.  Furthermore, robots could just as easily perform humanitarian functions like distributing food and medical supplies as human soldiers.  I fail to see how locals could not analyze the actions of robots and determine whether they are a positive or negative force in their community.   Schulzke generalized that to an indigenous population, robots create a negative impression, seem unfair and appear more hostile than human soldiers, yet he failed to provide any evidence to support his claims.  If robots are as bad as he claims, Schulzke should have been able to provide a specific example of their negative impacts in modern conflicts like the war in Afghanistan.  

Join now!

        In a similar analysis, Simpson asked, “could those whom robot warriors fight amongst trust them” (Simpson 327).  He defined trust as a dynamic interaction between two things over another; normative trust (his primary focus of trust) is based on interactions between two groups and is not strictly reliance of one group on another.  Additionally, trustworthiness must be rational and based on one group’s long-term self-interest, goodwill, or debt to another and “acting from the right motive”.   Simpson’s argument does not negate locals being able to trust robot warriors; neither of these definitions relies on any solely human characteristics.  His ...

This is a preview of the whole essay