Issue #59
Last Update September 23, 2008
National Military Without Soldiers by Sten Grynir June 5, 2007 We are at the start of an era where fewer and fewer soldiers will be needed to achieve military objectives. Functions that used to require manpower will be done by autonomous machines - robots in a variety of guises. This has benefits and drawbacks for society, and for liberty. The benefit is obvious: fewer soldiers in harm's way means fewer Americans killed. The drawback is less obvious: our citizen-soldier tradition has been a bulwark against dictatorship, and to some extent a check on military adventurism.
In an earlier article in New York Stringer, it was argued that bringing back the draft would not put pressure on the president to end the Iraq war; on the contrary, it would provide more resources to prosecute the war, and would end up by prolonging it. The brake on Mr. Bush has been the limited nature of the resources at his disposal. Provide a sophisticated and numerous robot corps and a future president could ignore the will of Congress and people with impunity, and without incurring the national anger that numerous body bags brings.
The situation is even more serious when you consider what is required to establish a dictatorship. A 100% human American military stands between a potential dictator and the use of the armed forces to create a coup. Most American soldiers (and their commanders) would simply refuse to participate, and would actively oppose a military putsch. In a highly roboticised military, a small cadre controlling large resources would have a better chance at overthrowing a civilian government.
These dangers are far in the future. At least 10 years of development and another five to ten years of procurement would be required to bring the military to such a highly automated state. Do we now cut back on robotic development and implementation to forestall future dangers? This would be silly, futile and dangerous. A roboticised military is unavoidable: no one wants a big body count as the quid pro quo of a reduction in the hypothetical risk of Presidential abuse of power. Technological change is unstoppable; like King Canute, the robotic tides can't be held back. Only the Chinese emperors have ever succeeded in squelching technological advances, and China paid the price for that in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when the European powers, backed by superior transportation, communication and armament, all but dismembered a great empire.
Instead, we need to encourage a a habit of thinking in civilian life and in the military, that would make the use of robots against the American public an obscenity, and reinforce the currently ingrained apolitical stance of our armed forces. In addition, the stationing of armed robots in the territorial US could be forbidden by law, just as the CIA is forbidden to act domestically; moving armed robots into our domestic space would constitute a crossing of the Rubicon, and a clear signal that a coup had begun. (Unarmed robots, useful for disaster relief, could be stationed on American soil, carefully monitored to ensure they remain unarmed.)
As for restricting Presidential propensities to start wars, we have always had the power to do that. It is found in the Constitution, which gives only Congress the power to declare war, and the power to finance it. A Congress that lives up to its responsibilities is a basic necessity for our democracy. It is up to us as citizens to make sure they do their job.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
To be notified of New York Stringer updates and new issues, click here.
New York Stringer is published by NYStringer.com. For all communications, contact David Katz, Editor and Publisher, at david@nystringer.com
All content copyright 2008 by nystringer.com