Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Design for Values in the Armed Forces: Nonlethal Weapons and Military Robots

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design

Abstract

Since the end of the Cold War, Western military forces became frequently involved in missions to stabilize conflicts around the world. In those conflicts, the military forces increasingly found themselves operating among the people. The emerging need in military interventions to prevent casualties translated into a range of value-driven military technological developments, such as military robots and nonlethal weapons (NLW). NLWs are characterized by a certain technological and operational design “window” of permissible physiological effect, defined at each end by values: one value is a controlled physiological impact to enforce compliance by targeted individuals and the other value is the prevention of inflicting serious harm of fatality. Robot drones, mine detectors, and sensing devices are employed on the battlefield but are operated at a safe distance by humans. Their deployment serves to decrease casualties and traumatic stress among own military personnel and seeks to enhance efficiency and tactical and operational superiority.

This chapter points out that societal and political implications of designing for values in the military domain are governed by a fundamentally different scheme than is the case in the civil domain. The practical cases examined illustrate how values incorporated in military concept and system designs are exposed to counteraction and annihilation when deployed in real-world operational missions.

This research is part of the FP7 research project “Suicide Bomber Counteraction and Prevention” (SUBCOP), which is supported by the European Union under project reference 312375.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 499.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 699.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In hindsight, however, the follow-up in Iraq between 2003 and 2011 of the First Gulf War was much more lethal, as the nature of the conflict had become irregular and asymmetrical, thus marginalizing the role of PGMs.

  2. 2.

    The term nonlethal weapon already appeared in writings on colonial policing during the 1930s (Gwynn 1934, pp. 32–33).

  3. 3.

    NATO: NATO Policy on Non-Lethal Weapons, NATO, Brussels (13 Oct 1999.

  4. 4.

    The expression of the “fog of war” was coined early in the nineteenth century by the Prussian General Carl Von Clausewitz [1831] (1984), in his famous work “Vom Kriege” (“On War”). Its relevance for NLWs has been addressed in Orbons (2010).

  5. 5.

    In November 2011, protestors in Cairo were killed as a consequence of asphyxiation by particular types of tear gas and others blinded or otherwise injured by rubber bullets intentionally fired at the head and neck (Human Rights Watch 2012).

  6. 6.

    Former Senator John Glenn once coined the term “Dover Test”: whether the public still supports a war is measured by responses to returning body bags. He called it the “Dover Test” as the coffins of killed American soldiers came in from abroad at the air base in Dover, Delaware.

  7. 7.

    In fact, the USA expects to operate autonomous robots in 2035 (US Department of Defense 2009), while South Korea already has autonomous robots, stationary but armed with a derivative of the FN Minimi – a light machine gun, capable of fully automatic fire – guarding the border of North Korea.

  8. 8.

    For the impact on situational awareness, we refer to Riley et al. (2010).

  9. 9.

    Although learning armed military robots appear high on the US military agenda (Sharkey 2008), the deployment of these robots is, at least under present and near-term conditions, not reasonable within the next two decades (Arkin 2009). Barring some major significant breakthrough in artificial intelligence research, situational awareness cannot be incorporated in software for lethal military robots (Gulam and Lee 2006; Fitzsimonds and Mahnken 2007; Kenyon 2006; Sharkey 2008; Sparrow 2007).

  10. 10.

    Schulzke (2013) has argued that it is possible to attribute responsibility to autonomous robots by addressing it within the context of the military chain of command.

  11. 11.

    Johnson and Axinn (2013) have countered Arkin’s statement and argued that robots with no emotions do not have the attitude toward people that “healthy” humans are expected to have, and that therefore well-trained humans with healthy emotions are more desirable than autonomous robots.

  12. 12.

    See Van de Poel and Royakkers (2011). If ethical theories do not provide moral principles that can be straightforwardly applied to get the right answer, what then is their role, if any, in applied ethics? Their role is, first, instrumental in discovering the ethical aspects of a problem or situation. Different ethical theories stress different aspects of a situation; consequentialism, for example, draws attention to how consequences of actions may be morally relevant; deontological theories might draw attention to the moral importance of promises, rights, and obligations. And virtue ethics may remind us that certain character traits can be morally relevant. Ethical theories also suggest certain arguments or reasons that can play a role in moral judgments.

  13. 13.

    As, for instance, Wright (2006, pp. 190–191) found that during the Troubles, strong correlations existed between events with baton round use and the occurrence of violence and insurgency activity against British Army personnel soon after the such events.

References

  • Allgood M (2009) The end of US military detainee operations at Abu Ghraib. Master thesis, University of Florida, Orlando

    Google Scholar 

  • Amnesty International (2004) United States of America: excessive and lethal force? (Report AMR 51/139/2004). Amnesty International, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson M, Anderson S (2007) Machine ethics: creating an ethical intelligent agent. AI Mag 28(4):15–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Arkin R (2009) Governing lethal behaviour in autonomous robots. Chapman & Hall/CRC, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Arnesen O, Rahimi R (2007) Military non-lethal solutions for medium to long ranges. Paper presented at the 4th European symposium on non-lethal weapons, Ettlingen, 21–23 May

    Google Scholar 

  • Asaro P (2007) Robots and responsibility from a legal perspective. In: Proceedings of the 8th IEEE 2007 international conference on robotics and automation. Workshop on RoboEthics, Rome, 14 April 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Asaro P (2009) Modeling the moral user. IEEE Technol Soc 28(1):20–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura A (1999) Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 3(3):193–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrows C (2002) Operationalizing non-lethality: a Northern Ireland perspective. In: Lewer N (ed) The future of non-lethal weapons – technologies, operations, ethics and law. Frank Cass, London, pp 99–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Centre PF (1996) In the line of fire – Derry July 1996. Pat Finucane Centre, Derry Londonderry

    Google Scholar 

  • Coker C (2001) Humane warfare. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings M (2004) Creating moral buffers in weapon control interface design. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 23:28–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings M (2006) Automation and accountability in decision support system interface design. J Technol Stud 32(1):23–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Detert J, Treviño L, Sweitzer V (2008) Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: a study of antecedents and outcomes. J Appl Psychol 93(2):374–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly S (2005) Long-distance warriors, Time Magazine, 4 Dec

    Google Scholar 

  • Fieser J, Dowden B (2007) Just war theory. The internet encyclopedia of philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm

  • Fitzsimonds J, Mahnken T (2007) Military officer attitudes towards UAV adoption: exploring institutional impediments to innovation. Jt Force Q 46:96–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman L (1998) The revolution in military affairs. Oxford University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gompert D, Johnson S, Libicki M et al (2009) Underkill – scalable capabilities for military operations amid populations. RAND Cooperation, Arlington

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gulam H, Lee S (2006) Uninhabited combat aerial vehicles and the law of armed conflicts. Aust Army J 3(2):123–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Gwynn C (1934) Imperial policing. MacMillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellström T (2013) On the moral responsibility of military robots. Ethics Inf Technol 15(2):99–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Human Rights Watch (2012) Egypt: Protesters’ blood on the military leadership’s hands. http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/11/22/egypt-protesters-blood-military-leadership-s-hands. Accessed on 12 Feb 2012

  • Hussey J, Berry R (2008) When the earth shakes! Detainee disturbances in an internment facility. Mil Police 19(1):9–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Iraq Coalition Casaulty Count (2008) Deaths caused bu IEDs and U.S. deaths by month. http://icasualties.org/oif/IED.aspx. Accessed on 12 Feb 2012

  • Isenberg D (2007) Robots replace trigger fingers in Iraq, Asia Times Online. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IH29Ak01.html

  • Johnson A, Axinn S (2013) The morality of autonomous robots. J Mil Ethics 12(2):129–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaag J, Kaufman W (2009) Military frameworks: technological know-how and the legitimization of warfare. Camb Rev Int Aff 22(4):585–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan R (2006) Hunting the taliban in Las Vegas. Atlantic Monthly 4 Aug

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenyon H (2006) Israel deploys robot guardians. Signal 60(7):41–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishnan A (2009) Killer robots. Legality and ethicality of autonomous weapons. Ashgate, Farnham

    Google Scholar 

  • Latham A (1999) Re-imagining warfare: the “revolution in military affairs”. In: Snyder C (ed) Contemporary security and strategy. MacMillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthias A (2004) The responsibility gap: ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics Inf Technol 6:175–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer C (2007) Non-lethal weapons and non-combatant immunity: is it permissible to target non-combatants? J Mil Ethics 6(3):221–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNab R, Scott R (2009) Non-lethal weapons and the long tail of warfare. Small Wars Insurg 20(1):141–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar R, Rutherford W, Johnston S et al (1975) Injuries caused by rubber bullets: a report on 90 patients. Br J Surg 62:480–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris J (1992) Non-lethality: a global strategy (white paper). US Global Strategy Council, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy M, Merrit J, Mason P et al (2003) Bioeffects research in support of the active denial system (ADS): a novel directed energy non-lethal weapon. Paper presented at the European Working Group NLW 2nd symposium on non-lethal weapons, Ettlingen, 13–14 May

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2005) Autonomous vehicles in support of naval operations. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Northern Ireland Office (2006) Patten report recommendations 69 and 70 relating to public order equipment. A research programme into alternative policing approaches towards the management of conflict. Fifth report prepared by the UK Steering Group led by the Northern Ireland Office, in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers. Northern Ireland Office, Belfast

    Google Scholar 

  • Orbons S (2010) Do non-lethal weapons license to silence? J Mil Ethics 9(1):78–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orbons S (2012) Non-lethality in reality. A defence technology assessment of its political and military potential. PhD thesis. University of Amsterdam. http://dare.uva.nl/record/436342

  • Orbons S, Royakkers L (2014) Non-lethal weapons: striking experiences in a non-cooperative environment. Int J Technoethics 5(1):15–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riley J, Strater L, Chappell S et al (2010) Situational awareness in human-robot interaction: challenges and user interface requirements. In: Jentsch F, Barnes M (eds) Human-robot interaction in future military operations. Ashgate, Burlington

    Google Scholar 

  • Royakkers L, Van Est Q (2010) The cubicle warrior: the marionette of digitalized warfare. Ethics Inf Technol 12:289–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulzke M (2013) Autonomous weapons and distributed responsibility. Philos Technol 26(2):203–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharkey N (2008) Cassandra or false prophet of doom: AI robots and war. IEEE Intell Syst 23(4):14–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharkey N (2010) Saying “no!” to lethal autonomous targeting. J Mil Ethics 9(4):369–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer P (2009) Wired for war: the robotics revolution and conflict in the twenty-first century. Penguin, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith R (2006) The utility of force – the art of war in the modern world. Penguin, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparrow R (2007) Killer robots. J Appl Philos 24(1):62–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparrow R (2009) Building a better warbot: ethical issues in the design of unmanned systems for military applications. Sci Eng Ethics 15(2):169–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparrow R (2011) Robotic weapons and the future of war. In: Tripodi P, Wolfendale J (eds) New wars and new soldiers: military ethics in the contemporary world. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 117–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Strawser B (2010) Moral predators: the duty to employ uninhabited aerial vehicles. J Mil Ethics 9(4):342–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullins J (2010) RoboWarfare: can robots be more ethical than humans on the battlefield? Ethics Inf Technol 12(3):263–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanielian T, Jaycox L (eds) (2008) Invisible wounds of war: psychological and cognitive injuries, their consequences, and services to assist recovery. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica

    Google Scholar 

  • Toffler A, Toffler H (1994) War and anti-war – survival at the dawn of the 21st century. Warner, London

    Google Scholar 

  • UK Steering Group (2004) Patten report recommendations 69 and 70 relating to public order equipment: a research report into alternative policing approaches towards the management of conflict. Fourth report, Northern Ireland Office, Belfast

    Google Scholar 

  • UK Steering Group (2006) Patten report recommendations 69 and 70 relating to public order equipment: a research programme into alternative policing approaches towards the management of conflict. Fifth report, Northern Ireland Office, Belfast

    Google Scholar 

  • US Department of Defense (2009) Unmanned systems roadmap: 2009–2034 (OMB No. 0704–0188). Department of Defence, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Air Force (2009) Unmanned aircraft systems flight plan 2009–2047. Headquarters, United States Air Force, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • US Army Surgeon General’s Office (2006) Mental health advisory team (MHAT) IV: Operation Iraqi Freedom 05–07, 17 Nov 2006. www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2006/1117mhatreport.pdf

  • Van de Poel I, Royakkers L (2011) Ethics engineering and technology. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Veruggio G, Operto F (2008) Roboethics: social and ethical implications of robotics. In: Siciliano B, Khatib O (eds) Springer handbook of robotics. Springer, Berlin, pp 1499–1524

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vilke G, Chan T (2007) Less lethal technology: medical issues. Polic Int J Police Strateg Manage 30(3):341–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Clausewitz C ([1831] 1984) On war. In: Howard M, Paret P (eds) On war. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Weir S (1983) No weapon which deters rioters is free from risk. New Soc :83–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickens C, Levinthal B, Rice S (2010) Imperfect reliability in unmanned air vehicle supervision and control. In: Barnes M, Jentsch F (eds) Human-robot interaction in future military operations. Ashgate, Burlington

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright S (2006) A system approach to analysing sub-state conflicts. Kybernetes 35(1/2):182–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technical University of Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Lambèr Royakkers

  2. Nederlandse Defensie Academie, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Sjef Orbons

Authors
  1. Lambèr Royakkers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sjef Orbons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lambèr Royakkers .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ethics and Philosophy of Technology, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Jeroen van den Hoven

  2. Department of Ethics and Philosophy of Technology, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Pieter E. Vermaas

  3. Department of Ethics and Philosophy of Technology, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Ibo van de Poel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this entry

Cite this entry

Royakkers, L., Orbons, S. (2015). Design for Values in the Armed Forces: Nonlethal Weapons and Military Robots . In: van den Hoven, J., Vermaas, P., van de Poel, I. (eds) Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6970-0_28

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6970-0_28

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-007-6969-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6970-0

  • eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and Law

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation