{"id":476,"date":"2011-09-26T19:16:23","date_gmt":"2011-09-26T23:16:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.profligategrace.com\/?p=476"},"modified":"2011-09-26T19:25:10","modified_gmt":"2011-09-26T23:25:10","slug":"kara-slade-unauthorized-disclosures-unmanned-aerial-vehicles-aerospace-systems-design-and-the-problem-of-engineering-ethics-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.profligategrace.com\/?p=476","title":{"rendered":"[Kara Slade] Unauthorized disclosures: Unmanned aerial vehicles, aerospace systems design, and the problem of “engineering ethics,” Part 1"},"content":{"rendered":"

I wrote this paper last spring and proposed it for the annual meeting of the Society of Christian Ethics. \u00a0It wasn’t accepted, and I’m not completely sure why, but the only comment I received from the reviewers was “What about the voices of the victims?” \u00a0One of the points I was trying to make in the paper was that those voices are faintly heard, if at all, by those who design and build UAV’s. \u00a0There are many aspects to the problem of the use of drones that I don’t address here – I’m writing as an engineer who cares deeply about engineering education and the moral formation that happens (or doesn’t happen) in that environment. \u00a0I’ll be posting an edited version here as a series, in the hope that someone may find something in it useful as Christian ethics tries to speak to the increasing reliance on this problematic technology.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

\u00a0Let us pretend we’ve got it together,
\nLet us ignore the coming sun
\nWe’ll sing the body electric
\nUntil machine and soul are one.
\n– The Lonely Forest, “We Sing in Time”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

A brief story on a new U.S. military action in Pakistan appeared in the April 22, 2011 edition of the New York Times, but its substance was predictably similar to many previous reports from the region.\u00a0 It reported that \u201can American drone attack killed 23 people in North Waziristan on Friday . . . in a strike against militants that appeared to signify unyielding pressure by the United States on Pakistan\u2019s military.\u201d[1]<\/a>\u00a0 While the targets of this action were, as always, \u201cmilitants,\u201d it also killed \u201cfive women and four children,\u201d according to a Pakistani official.[2]<\/a>\u00a0 The use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) has been a prominent but controversial feature of American involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan since 2001, with the controversy stemming primarily from the number of civilian deaths associated with them.\u00a0 Despite ongoing ethical and legal questions, military and political leaders have repeatedly expressed the need to expand the role of unmanned aircraft and other robots in combat, with an emphasis on the development of autonomous decision-making capabilities.<\/p>\n

This class of weapons is but one example of a broader problem in the story of modern military technology: the design of ethically dubious objects by professional engineers who are unwilling or unable to object to participation in such projects \u00a0based on their own moral convictions.\u00a0 While traditional approaches to \u201cengineering ethics\u201d have focused on the decision to object<\/em>, or on the development of proper moral convictions<\/em>\u00a0(and\u00a0methodologies of moral reasoning)<\/em>,\u00a0 it is my contention that the true problem lies elsewhere – in the narrative of progress underlying the profession, the habituation into certain patterns of analytical thought occurring in engineering education, and in the professional and personal isolation common to the profession that makes an act of true moral courage difficult.<\/p>\n

I. \u00a0FOREVER NEW FRONTIERS: AUTONOMOUS UNMANNED COMBAT AERIAL VEHICLES AND THE RHETORIC OF PROGRESS<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In a 2004 article in Air and Space Power Journal<\/em>, Maj. James Hoffman described the increasing importance of unmanned aircraft for combat roles in terms of a future in which \u201ctechnological factors will no longer restrain the development of unmanned aircraft,\u201d with the only \u201cimpediment\u201d to \u201cprogress\u201d being resistance to \u201ccultural change\u201d on the part of some pilots.\u00a0 Hoffman calls for \u201ca new generation of leaders\u201d to ensure that further UAV \u201cdevelopment\u201d continues.[3]<\/a>\u00a0 From the perspective of United States doctrine and policy, the desirability of that development is assumed, while official reflection on the moral implications of the technology and its use is, for the most part, strangely absent.\u00a0 In both the 2007 and 2009 editions of the 200-page Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap, the words \u201cethics,\u201d \u201cmoral,\u201d or \u201csocial\u201d do not appear at all.\u00a0 The \u201cpublic\u201d is referred to only insofar as the government perceives a need to \u201cincrease . . . positive public attitude\u201d to \u201cfoster greater trust in unmanned systems.\u201d[4]<\/a>\u00a0 Any expression of negativity, whether on the part of military professionals or members of the public, is attributed to ignorance or cultural resistance that must be overcome for the sake of progress and the desires of the state.<\/p>\n

There are several directions in which UAV technology is being pushed simultaneously, based on the government\u2019s desire for more<\/em>, faster<\/em>, and smarter<\/em>.\u00a0 The General Atomics MQ-9 \u201cReaper,\u201d shown in Figure 1 below, is the current state-of-the-art operational UAV in the United States inventory.\u00a0 It is capable of carrying fourteen AGM-114 \u201cHellfire\u201d missiles or, alternatively, four missiles and two 500-pound \u201cPaveway II\u201d laser-directed bombs.\u00a0 It represents a marked increase in payload capacity over its predecessor, the MQ-1 \u201cPredator,\u201d which ordinarily carries two missiles.\u00a0 These two aircraft represent a longstanding facet of military technology development, the desire for more<\/em>.\u00a0 In this case, the contractor anticipated the government\u2019s desire, and financed the design of the MQ-9 from its own funds.\u00a0 It was rewarded with an order for over 300 vehicles.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Figure 1. <\/strong>\u00a0MQ-9 Reaper firing missile<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In addition to more<\/em>, new aerospace technologies may be developed in response to a desire for faster <\/em>or longer<\/em> in terms of propulsion.\u00a0 The propeller-driven MQ-9, with a cruise speed of 200 mph, is not a rapid-response vehicle, and its range is limited.\u00a0 As a long-range program, the Department of Defense has set a goal of delivering a large payload\u00a0 \u00a0from within the continental United States to anywhere in the world in a time of \u201cless than two hours.\u201d[5]<\/a>\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0The U.S.\u2019 research effort in hypersonic weapons delivery has been plagued with high-profile mishaps: one test vehicle\u00a0exploded in 2001, and another was lost in 2010.\u00a0 Research in this direction continues under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency\u2019s FALCON program, although its current scope is difficult to discern.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Figure 2.<\/strong>\u00a0 Artist\u2019s conception of X-43A hypersonic vehicle<\/p>\n

The third leg of UAV development, smarter<\/em>, is the aspect of the technology that has generated the most vigorous debate, largely due to the novelty of the presenting issues.\u00a0 \u00a0The National Defense Authorization Act of 2000 introduced a Congressional mandate for the development and use of unmanned deep-strike aircraft and ground vehicles, creating \u201cincreasing pressure to develop and deploy robotics, including autonomous vehicles.\u201d[7]<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0Along with the \u201ccompelling military utility\u201d of the use of robots for \u201cdull, dirty, and dangerous\u201d tasks, some researchers have identified the repeated commission of atrocities by soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan as a reason to pursue the alternative of robotic weapons.[8]<\/a>\u00a0 Ronald Arkin, a computer scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, argues that \u201can unmanned system can perform more ethically than human soldiers,\u201d although he admits that it would not be possible to create a \u201cperfectly ethical\u201d system.[9]<\/a>\u00a0 He advocates the implementation a deontic logic based on the adaptation of the categorical imperative to \u201ca set of more direct and relevant assertions regarding acceptable actions towards noncombatants and their underlying rights.\u201d[10]<\/a>\u00a0 Tellingly, he selects this strategy based not on its suitability as an ethical system but on \u201ccomputational tractability.\u201d[11]<\/a>\u00a0 In the development of a proposed \u00a0architecture, Arkin admits that he has made \u201cstrong (and limiting) simplifying assumptions\u201d about the actual functioning of the system.[12]<\/a><\/p>\n

Another analysis argued that this quasi-Kantian system would require \u201can impossible computational load due to the requirements for knowledge . . . and the difficulty of estimating the sufficiency of initial information.\u201d[13]<\/a>\u00a0 The authors recommend a virtue ethics approach that would enable the robot to \u201cembody the right tendencies in their reactions to the world and other agents in the world.\u201d[14]<\/a> Leaving aside the question of whether or not a machine can embody anything at all, the admission that \u201cmorally intelligent behaviour may require much more than being rational\u201d would seem to obviate any chance that a computing device could be programmed for moral intelligence.[15]<\/a>\u00a0 However, the authors recommend continued work towards that end, \u201cbefore irrational public fears or accidents arising from military robotics derail research progress and national security interests.\u201d[16]<\/a>\u00a0 In doing so, they ask that engineers conduct \u201cextensive pre-deployment testing\u201d and \u201cthink carefully about how the subsystem they are working on could interact with other subsystems . . . in potentially harmful ways,\u201d while simultaneously ensuring that they can confidently certify safety.[17]<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0If for no other reason, due to the formal limitations on the predictability of complex systems, I would argue that those requirements cannot be met by any<\/em> engineer.\u00a0 However, the existence of this very significant problem, along with several other issues, does not seem to dissuade researchers from continuing.<\/p>\n

Next time: \u00a0Part 2, “When did you know?”: The design process and the mainstream of ‘engineering ethics’<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

[1]<\/a> Jane Perlez and Ismail Khan, \u201cDeadly Drone Strike by U.S. May Fuel Anger in Pakistan,\u201d The New York Times<\/em>, April 22, 2011, http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2011\/04\/23\/world\/asia\/23pakistan.html.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[2]<\/a> Ibid.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[3]<\/a> James C. Hoffman and Charles Tustin Kamps, \u201cAt the Crossroads: Future \u2018Manning\u2019 for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,\u201d Air and Space Power Journal<\/em>, Spring 2005, http:\/\/www.airpower.au.af.mil\/airchronicles\/apj\/apj05\/spr05\/hoffman.html.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[4]<\/a>Department of Defense, FY 2009-2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap<\/em>, http:\/\/www.aviationweek.com\/media\/pdf\/UnmannedHorizons\/UMSIntegratedRoadmap2009.pdf .<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[5]<\/a> \u201cAndrews Space Wins Two DARPA FALCON Contracts,\u201d Space Daily<\/em>, December 3, 2003, http:\/\/www.spacedaily.com\/news\/falcon-03b.html.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[6]<\/a>\u00a0(Deleted)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[7]<\/a> Patrick Lin, George Bekey, and Keith Abney, Autonomous Military Robots: Risk, Ethics, and Design<\/em>, California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, Ethics + Emerging Sciences Group, Report for Office of Naval Research, December 20, 2008, 6.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[8]<\/a> Patrick Lin, George Bekey, and Keith Abney, Autonomous Military Robots: Risk, Ethics, and Design<\/em>, California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, Ethics + Emerging Sciences Group, Report for Office of Naval Research, December 20, 2008, 7.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[9]<\/a> R. C. Arkin, “Governing Lethal Behavior: Embedding Ethics in a Hybrid Deliberative\/Reactive Robot Architecture\u00a0 – Part I: Motivation and Philosophy”,\u00a0 Proc. Human-Robot Interaction 2008<\/em>, Amsterdam, NL, March 2008, 124.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[10]<\/a> R. C. Arkin, “Governing Lethal Behavior: Embedding Ethics in a Hybrid Deliberative\/Reactive Robot Architecture\u00a0 – Part III: Representational and Architectural Considerations,” Proceedings of Technology in Wartime Conference<\/em>, Palo Alto, CA, January 2008, 4.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[11]<\/a> Ibid.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[12]<\/a> Ibid.,<\/em> 9.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[13]<\/a> Lin et al<\/em>, 34.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[14]<\/a> Ibid.<\/em>, 38<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[15]<\/a> Patrick Lin, George Bekey, and Keith Abney, Autonomous Military Robots: Risk, Ethics, and Design<\/em>, California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, Ethics + Emerging Sciences Group, Report for Office of Naval Research, December 20, 2008, 37.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[16]<\/a> Ibid.<\/em>, 91.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[17]<\/a> Ibid.<\/em>, 69.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I wrote this paper last spring and proposed it for the annual meeting of the Society of Christian Ethics. \u00a0It wasn’t accepted, and I’m not completely sure why, but the only comment I received from the reviewers was “What about the voices of the victims?” \u00a0One of the points I was trying to make in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[10,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-476","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ethics","category-guestposts"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p7EotM-7G","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.profligategrace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/476","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.profligategrace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.profligategrace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.profligategrace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.profligategrace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=476"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/www.profligategrace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/476\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":504,"href":"https:\/\/www.profligategrace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/476\/revisions\/504"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.profligategrace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=476"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.profligategrace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=476"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.profligategrace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=476"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}