The era of artificial intelligence implies the introduction of innovations on a global scale, and the military is no exception to the rule. The transformation of this field is expected with the adoption of new technology and, more specifically, robots on the battlefield, which are intended for increasing both efficiency and safety. However, the adoption of these autonomous systems has both advantages and drawbacks, and their implementation is desirable but requires careful consideration.
Limited Mobility
The limitations of robots include their insufficient mobility for performing operations. Since these machines depend on the decisions of soldiers, which cannot be fully performed by the former, this circumstance serves as a barrier to the use of automatons (Swett et al., 2021). For example, different tasks, such as aiming a gun, are still not quite effective without human interventions (Hodicky & Prochazka, 2017). Thus, it is unreasonable to suggest replacing people with robots until their capability to operate is on a high level.
Inability to Recharge on the Battlefield
Another problem, which is still to be solved by specialists before including autonomous systems in the work of the military, is the inability to recharge them on the battlefield. In this case, human-defined goals cannot be achieved because of this condition (Swett et al., 2021). In addition, the need for continuous movement as well as the unpredictability of the battles do not allow established charging stations. This inconvenience is not addressed by developers, and it does not allow relying on robots.
Complicated Transportation to the Battlefield
The use of automatons for military objectives does not seem reasonable from the perspective of complications connected to their transportation to the battlefield. It is evident that they can be useful for the specified purposes, but the absence of systems for delivering them is a clear drawback (Etzioni & Etzioni, 2017). It means that the suggested operations cannot be performed in a timely manner, which, in turn, increases the probability of losing wars.
Physical Objects
The principal obstacle to the introduction of robots on the battlefield is related to the impossibility of operating in the current environment. It is generally described as unstructured, and the presence of numerous physical objects, particularly in wooded areas, is a challenge for people controlling the autonomous systems (Hodicky & Prochazka, 2017). From this perspective, the element of surprise cannot be fully avoided, and this fact adversely affects long-term planning initiatives related to strategic military operations.
Transitioning from Water to Land and Air
The navigation in the context of the current environmental limitations means the existence of problems in transitioning robots from water to land and air. This challenge is also conditional upon the impossibility of predicting physical obstacles on their way, and it is linked to the above factor (Hodicky & Prochazka, 2017). It means that the trajectories of their movement are unlikely to be planned with precision, and their coordination with the surface is still to be examined and improved based on future findings.
Limited Communications
Another area of limitations is connected to communication issues deriving from the dubious reliability of human-robot interactions. In this case, any disruptions linked to the environmental factors can result in the failure to reach mission objectives, and the lack of clarity in terms of language and other regulations complicates the situation (Hodicky & Prochazka, 2017). Therefore, the inclusion of robots in operations on the battlefields seems unlikely until these obstacles are adequately addressed by developers of these automatons.
Reduced Risks to Soldiers
The described disadvantages are significant for the future success or failure of the suggested innovation, whereas it is clear that this measure is critical. Thus, the main advantage of robots for performing military operations is the possibility of reducing harm to people since their involvement in particularly risky projects will be limited. It can be ensured through the preference of these systems in initiatives, which are potentially dangerous for soldiers, and these missions will be more efficient (Etzioni & Etzioni, 2017). It is evident that all adverse consequences of individuals’ activity in the military can hardly be prevented. Nevertheless, the statistical decrease in the cases of injuries or lethal outcomes will improve its reputation for both employees and outsiders. In this way, fewer numbers of warfighters and the adoption of technology positively correlate with moral considerations, which can improve the overall conditions for employees.
Carrying Equipment
The prospective efficiency of robots on the battlefield is conditional upon their greater capacity in carrying military equipment, and this factor is sufficient justification for their development. Their introduction on the battlefield can be advantageous from the standpoint of the effectiveness of collective efforts, and the availability of technological solutions of this nature would positively correlate with the increase in strategic military options (Swett et al., 2021). In addition, researchers claim that the transformation of warfare will be mainly caused by these machines’ inclusion in long-distance operations, which require heavy facilities (Swett et al., 2021). It means that the improvements in this area in the future are possible only if the military encompasses automatic systems with greater capabilities than those of soldiers. Consequently, it will be feasible to expand the territory covered by troops, and this outcome will increase the chances of winning the battles in the long run.
Extended Areas of Control and Coverage
The extension of areas of control and coverage is connected to the above provision, which is the carrying capacity of robots. It is complemented by guaranteed access to previously unavailable remote areas for performing military operations, which will result in greater opportunities for movement (Etzioni & Etzioni, 2017). In this case, the success of the designed initiatives will be determined by the ability of employees to exercise control over the territories, which are critical for their operations. Subsequently, the strategic solutions of individuals involved in the planning process will be more advanced and, therefore, effective, and this factor will serve as a significant advantage in the battles as well as other projects.
Conclusion
To summarize, the adoption of robots for military purposes seems reasonable from multiple perspectives. First, their role in ensuring the safety of soldiers is critical and, hence, should not be underestimated, especially when long-term interventions are considered. Second, the efficiency of automatons in carrying equipment compared to the limitations of humans highlights the greater potential of strategic planners. Third, the extension of territories under military control with the help of these structures is needed for implementing a more significant number of solutions in practice. Apparently, the use of robots can be viewed as an inappropriate decision due to their limitations regarding mobility, recharging, transportation, communication, and interaction with the physical environment. However, these concerns can be efficiently addressed over time, and the introduction of the described systems will bring more benefits than drawbacks.
References
Etzioni, A., & Etzioni, O. (2017). Pros and cons of autonomous weapons systems.Military Review, 72-81.
Hodicky, J., & Prochazka, D. (2017). Challenges in the implementation of autonomous systems into the battlefield. In 2017 International Conference on Military Technologies (ICMT) (pp. 743-747). IEEE.
Swett, B. A., Hahn, E. N., & Llorens, A. J. (2021). Designing robots for the battlefield: State of the art. In J. von Braun, M. S. Archer, G. M. Reichberg & M. S. Sorondo (Eds.), Robotics, AI, and humanity: Science, ethics, and politics (pp. 132-146). Springer.