|
Imagine being at the receiving end of
a missile that is targeting ‘bad guys’ lazing in the sun
in the AfPak region, or a ride in a vehicle in Yemen
ending in annihilation, courtesy a missile from a
Predator drone. It sounds like retribution from the
heavens, except that it is a purely human endeavour. The
west is determinedly moving towards this type of warfare
built around, what the Americans call, remote split
operations. It’s in our interest that we assimilate the
implications of this trend in war fighting, which looks
like the use of the mythical weapon Vajra by Indra.
Remote split operations are unique — an unmanned
aerial vehicle (UAV) could be flying anywhere in the
globe while being controlled by a pilot sitting in an
air-conditioned room in America. After assuming controls
of the UAV, he could be firing a missile to kill a
terrorist as part of his task for the day. Once his
shift ends, the UAV pilot would return home and maybe,
take his family out for dinner! This is not science
fiction but an act being played out daily.
‘UAV' is a household word; the Americans fielded
5000 UAVs of all types in Iraq and Afghanistan (up from
200 in the 1991 Gulf War). And the plans are grandiose.
US Air Force’s vision document ‘Unmanned aircraft
systems (UAS) flight plan 2009-2047’ charges it ‘to
harness increasingly automated, modular, globally
connected and sustainable multi-mission unmanned systems
resulting in a leaner more adaptable and efficient air
force.’ The attributes of persistence, endurance,
efficiency and connectivity, which are inherent in a
drone and are potent force multipliers, will be used to
overcome human limitations and revolutionize war
fighting.
The UAS developmental plan involves harnessing net
centricity that the West has perfected, and having
unmanned aircraft available worldwide, ready to be
directed to a conflict zone by pilots sitting at home
bases. With evolutionary progress in harnessing
artificial intelligence, the UASs would be infused with
the power to take combat decisions. They would engage in
combat to support other manned aircraft or carry weapons
to increase fire power availability. The final step
would be the use of this technological asymmetry to put
the adversary off-balance and, as the UAS flight plan
document says, bring about a “…revolution in the roles
of humans in air warfare.”
Where does that place the notion of sovereignty of a
state? In Libya last year, Security Council Resolution
1973 mandated protection of civilians, “…while excluding
a foreign occupation force of any form…” — implying no
foreign troops on ground. However, Apache helicopters
fired their missiles from not more than five to eight km
from Muammar Gaddafi’s troops. Does it imply that, just
because they were not actually touching the ground, the
sanctity of the UN mandate was upheld? And say, the same
scenario repeats itself two decades from now — would the
utilization, then, of UASs with offensive capabilities
not be in violation of a non-interference resolution of
the Security Council a la the Libyan UNSCR 1973, just
because there would be no humans on board? Possibly, a
‘human’ would need to be redefined!
High casualty sensitivity in the western society is
driving the robotisation of machines of war. Besides UAS,
we would have unmanned ground vehicles capable of
kinetic actions on the battlefield. This robotisation
has brought in questions of the moral and ethical kind,
as such asymmetry in technological progress, where one's
own troops are absolutely safe while engaged in mortal
combat, would bring in arrogance of power. The asymmetry
would be a critical handicap for the less
technologically endowed states, making them vulnerable
to unilateralism and violation of their sovereignty.
While India is no pushover, it is imperative that one
acknowledges the existence and repercussions of this
asymmetry and works to a plan which would demand
accelerated indigenous military technological research
and development and close integration of all elements of
national power, especially diplomatic and economic.
|
