With “How to (not) build the Terminator”, Frank Sauer from the University of the Bundeswehr (Munich) gave a vivid presentation at the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Vienna on current and foreseeable developments in weapons systems. The lecture was commented on by drone expert Colonel Markus Reisner (-> Interview: “We are currently writing history”). Militär Aktuell had the pleasure of asking the busy political scientist.
Doctor, in your presentation we heard about rapid developments in the autonomy of weapon systems. Automated target recognition can now be found everywhere. In your opinion, where are developments in the autonomy of weapon systems heading?
This development can no longer be stopped. In preventive regulation, it might have been possible to do something really sustainable ten years ago with a great deal of commitment. What I still hope for today, however, is that there are enough major key players, especially in NATOthat set responsible use of these technologies as the norm. This could provide certain guidelines. However, I do not currently see any binding and broadly supported treaty agreement on the horizon that would have far-reaching consequences.
Will we one day face a scenario like the one we know from the “Terminator” film series, in which robots wage war against humans?
If we move away from the image of a “Terminator” stomping through the streets, then I would say that this is already the case. Let’s think of loitering munitions that initially launch without specific target coordinates, but then strike with the help of automated target recognition (-> The Lancet crisis; -> Shahed jet drone already in use). However, the idea of bipedal killer robots fighting humans is a long way off. In terms of autonomy in weapons systems, I really have a lot of other upstream concerns before I think of the Terminator.
In your presentation, you also highlighted the role of small private or student project developments in the field of drones and target recognition. What forms of control are even possible in the age of 3D printers and the automated creation of programming codes by publicly accessible artificial intelligence?
You can’t control the technology. Nor would that be desirable. You can hardly regulate it through export controls either. Something can be achieved at the highest level of government, for example if we look at how far the Biden administration is going in terms of sanctions against China in the semiconductor sector (-> US Senate passes “anti-China bill”; -> Small components with a big impact). The best solution is therefore to agree on rules of application.
“We must leave our conscience with dying in war. We need to know who is dying where and under what circumstances as a result of our actions.”
In what way?
One example is the regulation of biological and chemical weapons. These conventions do not categorically define what biological and chemical weapons are and are not. They regulate their use. Arms control for weapons systems with autonomous capabilities must be viewed in a similar way. The aim here is to ensure “meaningful human control” – i.e. effective human control and judgment – in human-machine interaction on the battlefield. This means predictability, administrability and assignability of responsibility. Numerous countries have now also developed corresponding doctrines. The problem is less complicated than is often claimed.
In your lecture, you mentioned the possibility that we could almost separate weapons systems – fully mechanized – from human involvement. Does the autonomy of weapons systems take us away from war in such a way that we lose our sense of it?
Even if, hypothetically, we could outsource the war entirely to automated weapons systems, the war would still catch up with us in the end. After all, the underlying conflict is between us humans. I generally don’t believe in the idea of handing war over to machines so that we no longer have to deal with it. On the contrary, we shouldn’t even try because it would have many negative side effects. I therefore advocate a different leitmotif: we must leave our conscience with dying in war. We need to know who is dying where and under what circumstances as a result of our actions.
Click here to read the other articles in our “5 questions to” series.
