ISPSW Strategy Series: Focus on Defense and International Security

Issue

Autonomous Warfare – A Revolution in Military Affairs

No. 340

Maxim Worcester

April 2015

Autonomous Warfare – A Revolution in Military Affairs

Maxim Worcester
April 2015

Abstract
The world is on the cusp of an epochal shift from an industrial to an information based society and this is having a fundamental impact on the way war is conducted and what technologies are becoming available to theMilitary.
The fundamental nature of war remains immutable. As Carl von Clausewitz characterized it “war is essentiallyan interactive clash or two-sided duel between independent, hostile, sentient wills dominated by friction, uncertainty, disorder and highly nonlinear interactions”. Nothing alters the fact that war is a human endeavor,
with decidedly deadly consequences for all involved. New technology does not make war more clinical, it
makes it more deadly. What technology does do is to make the battlefield more complex.
Public debate is heating up over the future development of lethal autonomous weapon systems. Some advocate a complete ban on any further development, others a more gradual development and evolution of codesof conduct based on traditional legal and ethical principles governing weapons and warfare. On the other hand,
there will always be those who will develop and deploy such future systems with scant regard of ethics andlegality.

About ISPSWThe Institute for Strategic, Political, Security and Economic Consultancy (ISPSW) is a private institute forresearch and consultancy. The ISPSW is objective and task oriented, and impartial to party politics.
In an ever more complex international environment of globalized economic processes and worldwide political,
ecological, social and cultural change, that bring major opportunities but also risks, decision makers in enterprises and politics depend more than ever before on the advice of highly qualified experts.
ISPSW offers a range of services, including strategic analyses, security consultancy, executive coaching andintercultural competency. ISPSW publications examine a wide range of topics relating to politics, economy,international relations, and security/defence. ISPSW network experts have operated in executive positions, insome cases for decades, and command wide-ranging experience in their respective areas of specialization.

©

Institut für Strategie- Politik- Sicherheits- und Wirtschaftsberatung ISPSW
Giesebrechtstr. 910629 Berlin
Germany

TelFax+49 (0)30 88 91 89 05+49 (0)30 88 91 89 06

1

E-Mail: info@ispsw.de
Website: http://www.ispsw.deISPSW Strategy Series: Focus on Defense and International Security

Issue

Autonomous Warfare – A Revolution in Military Affairs

No. 340

Maxim Worcester

April 2015

Analysis
Previous Revolutions in Military Affairs
The systematic study of technology’s’ impact on war is a relatively new phenomena. The definitive work isperhaps van Creveld`s “Technology and War: From 2000BC to the Present”. In his book van Creveld divides
military history into four eras: “Age of Tools”, “Age of the Machine”, Age of Systems” and “Age of Automation”.
During the “Age of Tools”, which lasted until around 1500 AD, most technology was driven primarily by musclesof humans or animals. The “Age of the Machine” was defined by greater professional skills and the substitutionof firepower mass rather than manpower mass. In the “Age of Systems” the emphasis shifted to the integrationof technology (machines) into complex networks. This era culminated in World War II with the innovative
application of aviation, ground forces and communication technology.
Since 1945 the importance of systems has taken a great leap forward and has culminated in the Age of Automatisation. This era culminated in the Persian Gulf War, where the United States and her allies overwhelmed
the world`s fourth largest army in remarkably short time with insignificant casualties and loss of equipment.
That conflict was dominated by the use of guided munitions and unmanned systems. Many of the deployedsystem were automated, but all required human input during at least one stage of deployment. All thedeployed systems had been around in one form or another for a good period of time and were – simply put –further developments of legacy systems. Aircraft used in the conflict were 4th rather than 3rd Generation, theMain Battle Tanks improvements on those developed to counter the Soviet threat, much as the Artillery was arefinement of a similar development dating back to the 1950s.
The Age of Autonomous Systems
We are now entering an entirely new era of Warfare which will be dominated by unmanned and autonomoussystems. Such systems will replace existing unmanned air, sea and ground vehicles in all physical operating
domains and across the full range of military operations. Such a regime has the potential to change the conceptof defense strategy and will have a profound impact on how decision makers consider decisions about the useof force. It is sure to trigger debates regarding operational concepts, the relationship between offensive anddefensive military strategies and the ethical and moral implications of deploying such systems.
The debate over the use of armed UAVs continues to dominate discussions about the future of Warfare. Only
few nations have deployed such systems and many Governments and political parties reject the use of such
systems on moral grounds. Future systems will not only be unmanned, they will have no human in the decision
making loop at all. It is understandable, that the use of autonomous UAVs and other systems such as autonomous land and sea systems is divisive in the extreme.
The principles of “Just War” are the basis of ethics and law that govern armed conflict and they can accommodate the use of such autonomous systems currently under development. Under the laws of war, appropriate
use of force is judged not only by assessing the results of force, but also by the proportionality of employingthat force. A UAV might kill a non-combatant on the battlefield, which is tragic. However, if such force had
been deemed to be proportional according to the situation and threat, the death would be both morally andlegally acceptable. If autonomous systems are programmed to act according to the laws of war, such systems
pose no new ethical dilemma if deployed on the battlefield.

©

Institut für Strategie- Politik- Sicherheits- und Wirtschaftsberatung ISPSW
Giesebrechtstr. 910629 Berlin
GermanyTelFax+49 (0)30 88 91 89 05+49 (0)30 88 91 89 06

2E-Mail: info@ispsw.de
Website: http://www.ispsw.de

ISPSW Strategy Series: Focus on Defense and International Security

Issue

Autonomous Warfare – A Revolution in Military Affairs

No. 340

Maxim Worcester

April 2015

The Drivers of Autonomous Systems
The main drivers of this Age of Autonomous Systems is the recognition that the dominance enjoyed by theUnited States up until the early 2000s in the area of high-end sensors, guided weaponry battle networking,cyberspace systems and stealth technology has started to erode. The reason for this development is the shift
from government-directed security research and development to the private sector. Companies focused on
producing consumer goods and business-to-business services are driving key enabling technologies such asadvanced computing, big data handling, autonomy, artificial intelligence, miniaturization, nano technology andhigh density power systems. All these developments can be exploited by clients to build increasingly sophisticated and capable weapons systems. Some of the clients are defense companies outside the US.
A further driver is the continued development of guided munitions. Such weapons trace their origin back to theSecond World War and came in the form of guided conventional weapons that actively corrected their trajectories after release. In 1943 German submarines first used passive acoustic homing torpedoes sinking several
merchant ships in the process. For the first time such weapons demonstrated accuracy regardless of the range
and could be fired beyond the range of the defenders counter measures. A parallel development was the concept of battle networks as demonstrated in 1940 during the Battle of Britain. The development of Radar andthe establishment of a rudimentary command, control and coordination network took surprise and chance outof the equation and allowed the outgunned and outnumbered RAF to effectively counter German attacks.
Following World War II the combination of guided weapons and battle networks spurred tactical and technological improvements in all operating domains. This culminated in the development of bombs and missiles withreliable Global Positioning System and internal navigating systems which could be deployed day or night and in
all weather conditions. During Operation Iraqi Freedom the percentage of guided weapons rose to nearly 65%
of all munitions expended.
This development has not gone unnoticed by countries such as China and Russia. They too have developed
state of the art munitions and systems and are exporting these to their client states. At the same time they arealso developing advanced cyber warfare tools and counter-stealth technologies designed specifically to exploit
perceived vulnerabilities in existing western systems. Such countermeasures are designed to cut lines of communication between operator/controller and weapon, be it manned or unmanned. It is this threat which isleading to the development of autonomous systems.
A driver in the development of autonomous systems which should not be ignored is demographic changes in
the West which will result in fewer recruits being available to join the armed forces. German population, forexample, is set to decline from 82 Million to 75 Million by 2050 and the average age of the population will be50. This trend (fewer and older) has already had an impact on the cost of personnel. In the United States theaverage pay and benefits for the armed forces has risen from $ 44,200.- in 2001 to $ 81,600.- in 2013 – anincrease of 85%. It is estimated that some 50% of the total defense budget of the US is wage related. Clearly
the introduction of autonomous systems will serve to reduce the proportion of money spent on employing andretaining personnel.
The final driver of autonomous systems is the rapid advancements in computing, big data management andminiaturization. The fusion of advanced computing and data management with sensor technology has enabled
platforms to become more aware of their environment and interact with it in the absence of human control.

©

Institut für Strategie- Politik- Sicherheits- und Wirtschaftsberatung ISPSW
Giesebrechtstr. 910629 Berlin
GermanyTelFax+49 (0)30 88 91 89 05+49 (0)30 88 91 89 06

3E-Mail: info@ispsw.de
Website: http://www.ispsw.de

ISPSW Strategy Series: Focus on Defense and International Security

Issue

Autonomous Warfare – A Revolution in Military Affairs

No. 340

Maxim Worcester

April 2015

Current Autonomous Weapons
Current autonomous weapon systems have autonomous modes, and therefore only operate autonomously forshort periods. They are also constrained in the tasks they are used for, the types of targets they attack and thecircumstances in which they are used.
The development of the Brimstone air to ground missile is a good illustration of how autonomous weaponsevolve. Brimstone was originally designed as a “fire and forget” weapon against formations of armored vehicles
using a millimetric wave active radar homing seeker to ensure accuracy against moving targets. Experience inAfghanistan led to the addition of laser guidance thus allowing the operator to distinguish between targets inorder to reduce the possibility of civilian casualties. Brimstone can be programmed by the operator to adapt tospecific mission requirements and thus gives the weapon the ability to distinguish between targets and to selfdestruct if it is unable to find a target in the designated area. Brimstone has an autonomous target selection
capability once released from the aircraft and has the capability to determine where on a target best to impact
causing the most damage.
Brimstone was used extensively during Operation Ellamy over Libya in 2011 and currently by the Royal Air
Force over Iraq. In all over 120 missiles were fired over Libya with a success rate of 98%. The missile has beentested on a MQ-9 Reaper, the first time an autonomous weapon has been fired from a remotely guided platform.
In April 2015 the Office of Naval Research in Arlington announced that it had tested its LOCUST UAV Swarming
Technology programme. The LOCUST programme includes a tube-based launcher that can launch low-cost
UAVs in rapid succession. The breakthrough technology then utilizes information-sharing between the UAVs,
enabling autonomous collaborative behavior in either defensive or offensive missions. The demonstrations
took place in multiple locations in the spring of 2015 during which up to 9 UAVs worked together completely
autonomously in synchronized flight. The LOCUST programme uses three-foot long Coyote drones made by BAE
Systems which are electrically powered and weigh around 15 pounds. The UAV has a cruising speed of 60 knots
and a dash speed of 85 knots and can operate at altitudes of up to 20,000 feet. The Navy is now planning aship-based demonstration in 2016 using up to 30 swarming UAVs.
There are today a wide range of missile defensive systems which can be described as operating autonomously.
The Phalanx close in weapon system is in active service with 25 navies and was first deployed in 1980. TheAegis combat system was introduced in 1983 and Patriot in 2002. There are furthermore a number of groundvehicle active protection systems in operation or under development. Such systems are designed to detect andintercept missiles, rockets (RPGs) or artillery rounds before they impact on the target. Such systems are out of
the loop of human control given the extremely short response times required to neutralize the threat. TheSHARK Active Protection System developed by Thales and IBD Deisenroth Engineering is a good example ofsuch systems. A combination of radar and optronic sensors detects threats at very short ranges and destroys
incoming fire by releasing a pyrotechnical charge. The incoming round disintegrates and the remaining energy
is absorbed by the armor of the vehicle. Similar systems have been developed by KBP Instrument in Russia,
Artis and Raytheon in the United States and Rafael in Israel.

©

Institut für Strategie- Politik- Sicherheits- und Wirtschaftsberatung ISPSWGiesebrechtstr. 910629 Berlin
GermanyTelFax+49 (0)30 88 91 89 05+49 (0)30 88 91 89 06

4E-Mail: info@ispsw.de
Website: http://www.ispsw.de

ISPSW Strategy Series: Focus on Defense and International Security

Issue

Autonomous Warfare – A Revolution in Military Affairs

No. 340

Maxim Worcester

April 2015

The Definition Problem
There is no internationally agreed-upon definition for an autonomous weapon which complicates the debate
on this topic. From a common sense perspective, it makes sense to define an autonomous weapon as one thatselects and engages targets on its own, and a semi-autonomous weapon as one where a human is selecting thespecific targets for engagement. Given that definition it becomes clear, that there are today only very few truly
autonomous systems in operation. Such systems are currently defensive and can be described as being humansupervised with physical access to the system if necessary.
It is also becoming apparent, that the above common sense definition is not sufficient in setting exactly wherethe line is between autonomous and semi-autonomous weapon systems. In order to define more clearly, afurther definition might sharpen the distinction between autonomous and semi-autonomous systems, ahuman-supervised autonomous system. Thus the above described Brimstone missile would fall into this category, as the operator makes a decision to engage a specific target or not. In the case of an autonomous system,
however, the operator makes a decision to launch a weapon to seek out and destroy a general class of target
over a wide area, but is not taking a decision about which specific targets are to be engaged. The LOCUST project would seem to fit the definition of a truly autonomous system.
Conclusion
Rapid technological advances and changing threats mean that capabilities that today seem impossible will
come to fruition much sooner than we realise. Remotely controlled vehicles on ground in the air or in water
will soon be replaced by increasingly autonomous operating systems. The Franco-German plans to develop a“new” MALE-UAV for operational use in around 10 years’ time is a step in the wrong direction, unless such asystem can perform its intended operations in an autonomous mode. The current political view, at least inGermany, is however to ban autonomy in future weapons without any clear evidence that such systems areharmful. In fact, human-supervised autonomous systems such as Brimstone have actually reduced civilian
casualties in war. Brimstone was developed precisely with this in mind.
In the heat of battle, technical indicators have, at times, proven more reliable than human judgment. In 1988,
for instance, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner after the crew believed the aircraft wasdescending to attack. In fact, computers on board accurately indicated it was ascending to pass-by harmlessly.
In the case of the USS Vincennes the human operators overrode the automatic Aegis system and created ahuman and diplomatic disaster.
The incremental development and deployment of autonomous weapon systems is inevitable, and any attempt
at a global ban will be ineffective in stopping their use by those states whose acquisition of such weaponry
would be most dangerous. For this reason, the United States and some other Western allies will continue todevelop and increasingly deploy autonomous weapon systems. Some view this emergence of autonomousweapon systems as a crisis for the law and for the ethics of war. Provided we start now to incorporate legal andethical norms adapted to weapons that incorporate emerging technologies of automation and autonomy, theincremental movement to autonomous weapon systems can both be regulated and made to serve the ends oflaw on the battlefield of the future. Autonomous systems both in civilian life and on the battlefield are here tostay, as uncomfortable that fact might be to the general public.
***©

Institut für Strategie- Politik- Sicherheits- und Wirtschaftsberatung ISPSW
Giesebrechtstr. 910629 Berlin
Germany

TelFax+49 (0)30 88 91 89 05+49 (0)30 88 91 89 06

5E-Mail: info@ispsw.de
Website: http://www.ispsw.de

ISPSW Strategy Series: Focus on Defense and International Security

Issue

Autonomous Warfare – A Revolution in Military Affairs

No. 340

Maxim Worcester

April 2015

Remarks: Opinions expressed in this contribution are those of the author.

About the Author of this Issue
Maxim Worcester is Managing Director of German Business Protection GmbH (GBP), a Berlin based Security
Consultancy. GBP is a subsidiary company of KÖTTER Security. In the past he worked, amongst others, for theEconomist Intelligence Unit, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Control Risks and KPMG.

Maxim Worcester©

Institut für Strategie- Politik- Sicherheits- und Wirtschaftsberatung ISPSW
Giesebrechtstr. 910629 Berlin
GermanyTelFax+49 (0)30 88 91 89 05+49 (0)30 88 91 89 06

6E-Mail: info@ispsw.de
Website: http://www.ispsw.de