Covid-19 and Military Readiness

The corona virus pandemic has wreaked havoc in the US; it exposed the nation’s vulnerability to protect its citizens and turned both civilians and military lives upside down. Indeed, as the greatest nation in the world showed its ineffectiveness to fight this pandemic, should the population be worried about the military’s readiness to fight or defend in case of an attack? As of 20 March 2020, according to a USA today article:

·         Training has been canceled or cut back. The Air Force scrapped Red Flag in Alaska, a training exercise for top-gun combat pilots, Gen. David Goldfein, the Air Force chief of staff, told reporters Wednesday. The Army is altering operations at bases that prepare troops for combat to accommodate National Guard units needed in their states for relief operations. War games in Europe, Africa and at sea have been cut back or scrapped.

·         At least 67 troops in the U.S. and abroad as of Friday have been diagnosed with COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus. In Europe, 2,600 troops and civilian employees are quarantined as a precaution.

·         The Army is shuttering its recruiting centers across the country, moving to online efforts only. It has also reduced the number of recruits in training centers by 50%, said Gen. James McConville, the Army chief of staff. Six recruits have shown possible symptoms, he said.

·         Foreign and domestic travel for troops and their family members has been banned or severely restricted until mid-May.

Just like US leaders insisted on being ready to tackle the then epidemic at the beginning of the year, military leaders are insisting that despite the impact the virus has had, the US military stands ready to protect the territory and fight and win against any threat around the world. As Secretary Esper put it, “I want to assure the American people that the United States military remains ready and capable of meeting all of our national security requirements.

The Defense Department defines readiness as “the ability of military forces to fight and meet the demands of assigned missions.” However, the sole purpose of the US military is not to just fight; its might, readiness, and force serve as a powerful foreign policy tool to influence how adversarial countries think and behave. For instance, having a powerful military that is ready to fight prevents nuclear attacks from enemies and discourage allies from pursuing their own nuclear programs as the US will come to rescue when called upon.

Moreover, the virus impacts the military’s ability to upkeep its complex equipment such as ships, tanks and aircraft. Modern military not only need this equipment, but they also need them in proper conditions. Before the pandemic started there were reports that military equipment was in poor conditions due to inexperienced maintenance technicians at some facilities that created delays, and with the reduce in workers, the situation will continue to get worse. Finally, the US military is in a dire situation as the pandemic is affecting not just domestic operations, but also global. It will be very interesting to see how military leaders adjust their strategies to protect the US and its allies.

Ethics and Law of Cyber Warfare

Battles in the air, on land, and sea are decreasing with the rise of cyber warfare as countries are seeing the increase of cyber as the most critical tools of war. Yet, while the tools of war are changing, the rules have not. The US and the international community must have a thorough discussion to address the details and concerns of the morality, law, and ethics of the use of cyber capabilities for war to define lasting policies that will prevent unnecessary damage to the function of civilian systems and outline proper reasoning for launching cyberattacks. This new, complex realm of war requires immediate attention before it is too late to control.

Principles of the Just War Theory used as the backbone of existing international law, including certain principles and articles of Law of Armed Conflict and International Humanitarian Law, do not technically apply to the use of cyber warfare at the moment. The Geneva Convention, the Hague Convention, and other law-of-war conventions were established during a time when the world was quickly changing and advancing with the rise of the nation-state, modernization, aviation, and decolonization.

While most cyber attacks do not appear to fall under the Geneva Convention’s definitions of “grave breaches” or “war crimes,” they could still be illegal or unethical. Articles 51 and 57 of the Geneva Conventions protocols state that there must be precautions taken continuously to avoid harm to civilian populations and objects, prohibiting attacks that use means and methods with effects that cannot be controlled or that cause disproportional damage.

Cyber warfare systems lack precise targeting and inefficient means of damage assessment. This lack of assessment could lead to the launch of larger-scale attacks in hopes of guaranteeing damage, but since viruses can spread to civilian infrastructure from the military’s and damage repair could be very difficult, cyber attacks could still be prosecutable as war crimes under the current protocols.

International laws of war must be reevaluated to take the rise of globalization and the internet into account, and the public must be involved in the conversation regarding morality. The perpetual changes in this battleground are still in the beginning stages and lack enough precedence to be addressed based only on legal matters. A just and fair legal system is based on good moral philosophy, so updates to the international laws of war must begin with a breakdown of moral analysis of 21st-century warfare in the eyes of the public.

Prepared For Almost Everything..........Almost

Unified Quest 2014 was an Army wargame which examined an operational environment from 2030 to 2040. Some scenarios included insurgencies, corruption in failing states, and flooding and natural disasters in mega-cities. The Unified Quest 2013 wargame simulated a failed North Korean Nuclear state. In this game, North Korea lost control of its nuclear technology and warheads. It took nearly 56 days and 90,000 U.S. troops to contain North Korea's nuclear stockpiles.

Other Rand Corporation wargames have played a future war between the U.S. (blue team) and Russia/China (red team). This 2019 wargame involved conventional and cyber warfare. The United States seems to be worried about nations such as Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea. Various wargames and preparations can be discussed regarding these potential conflicts. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has shown the U.S. and the world was not prepared for a war with a virus. Bill Gates warned us in 2015.

Bill Gates stated the world needed to invest more in medication, vaccinations, medical testing, and preparations. Evidently, the U.S. did not listen and proceeded to cut funding to virus-fighting agencies. Gates pointed out the U.S. has spent large sums of money on nuclear deterrence, but has lacked funding in healthcare and pandemic prevention. 

Training for war and crisis can help prepare for medical pandemics. the U.S. military and NATO has well-trained service-members who have the capabilities to operate in multiple crisis situations. In the long run, the world would save lots of lives and money by initially preparing and investing in pandemic preparations. 

AnBot's Legacy

In February 2016, China first deployed the AnBot security robot at the Shenzhen airport; a year later, the Zhengzhou East railway station was granted its own patrol model. Developed by China's National Defense University, the 1.5 meter-tall AnBot (claimed to be the world's "first intelligent security robot") was designed to aid police as well as passersby. It was equipped with a system of high-definition digital cameras to allow for surveillance and freedom of movement, autonomous movement at up to 11 mph, sensors to track air quality and changes in temperature, and facial recognition capabilities. So far, its main tasks have been guard and patrol duty, but its onboard electroshock weapons coincide with criminal apprehension and riot control, if needed, and bystanders can use the touchscreen's SOS button to call the police.

Since then, China has developed and deployed several robot helpers as part of police technology integration initiative. In August of last year, the Handan Public Security Bureau deployed three kinds of robots to specifically aid traffic police: a road patrol robot, to identify and log drivers practicing illicit behavior; an advice traffic robot, to answer residents' questions and direct them from its station post; and an accident warning robot, to warn drivers about traffic accidents in the area.

Most recently, the Chinese government is preparing its technology sector (including robotics) to combat the spread of COVID-19 within its borders. Pudu Technology, MicroMulticopter, and other Chinese technology firms have developed robots to help medical staff, deliver meals to those in isolation, perform diagnostic functions, and spray disinfectants to minimize the risk of cross-infection. Deployed drones are capable of transporting medical samples and conducting thermal imaging. Experts are using AI to help them diagnose the disease and accelerate vaccine development. Even facial recognition cameras are being reconfigured to scan passersby for fever--and companies like SenseTime are working on detection software that would be able to recognize faces accurately, masked or not.

Scientific Advancement for the sake of itself: Are Autonomous Weapons Actually a Good Idea?

Lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) are weapons system that, once activated, require little to no human action in order to take carry out an objective. LAWS often uses computer algorithms and sensor systems to identify a target and use available weapons against it (CRS Report). The general definition of LAWS covers a wide variety of weapons, and levels of autonomy can range from partially to completely autonomous. Lawfare defines an autonomous weapon as “weapons that can select, detect and engage targets with little to no human intervention.”

At a basic level, all of this seems cool and innovative, but is it actually a good idea to develop, produce, and deploy LAWS as part of our military strategy? Is this technological innovation for its own sake—innovation that carries with it complex international implications?

However, LAWS have complex implications and potential consequences when they are used.

When LAWS make mistakes, target innocent civilians, or otherwise malfunction, who is ultimately responsible for the consequences? If an autonomous weapon indiscriminately kills civilians because of a corrupted algorithm, who is held responsible for the breach in international law? The military deploying the weapon, the potentially civilian corporations who built the code, and the contractors who produced and tested the weapon all potentially hold responsibility. Unlike a drone—which has a dedicated military operator dictating its actions—autonomous weapons may not have direct military operators, muddling the lines of responsibility and damaging oversight and accountability.

Autonomous weapons are also vulnerable to software breaches or hacks. Like any other technology, LAWS have vulnerabilities. According to Human Rights Watch, LAWS software is vulnerable to breaches, as malicious actors attempt to corrupt or even take control of adversarial LAWS and change their algorithms to target friendly groups, including its own personnel/military or civilians.

Autonomous weapons in theory sound like innovations that can limit mistakes and lower casualties in warfare. However, before these systems enter the conventional theater, its vulnerabilities and weaknesses must be considered.

Outlaw Killer Robots?

In July of 2018 2400 researchers, among those Demis Hassabis at Google and Elon Musk of SpaceX signed a pledge to not pursue the development of killer robots. This pledge states that the participants will “neither participate in nor support the development, manufacture, trade, or use of lethal autonomous weapons.” However, are weapons powered solely by AI really all that terrible?

The argument has been made that weapons powered by artificial intelligence would be not only less prone to human error, but also more effective. This is because of deep learning. Deep learning is a certain ability that some AI have that lets them form networks on their own. In essence, it learns to do tasks by itself. A drone powered solely by AI, without a human operator, would not have the problem of a blurry screen or any of the other problems that a human operator may have. There wouldn’t have to be a human manning a missile defense system and that person’s efforts could be spent elsewhere. In this way, AI weaponry would be vastly superior to its human counterpart.  

The most obvious downside of weapons that can shoot by themselves is that they are prone to hacking attempts by foreign entities. On a certain day in July of 2014, the United States was the target of hackers a total of 5840 times. If AI weaponry is developed, we can expect a certain number of these attacks daily to be targeted at these weapons. Of course, we can have a nigh impenetrable firewall placed on them, but eventually one will get through and from then the consequences would be dire. Is the United States, or any other country, really willing to risk that?

Another, perhaps less obvious, critique of certain AI weaponry is the fact that even if the human element is dead, the weapon still continues to operate. Do we really want certain regimes or organizations to have weaponry that, when all of the forces are killed, still continues to fire? On top of that, these weapons would be extremely difficult to dismantle or destroy. If the regime or organization doesn’t value human life and just wants to cause as much chaos and destruction as possible before they go down, then these weapons would be perfect for them to use.  

In short, I believe that weaponry powered by artificial intelligence is a good thing to have, but there always needs to be a human element to back it up. Weaponry solely powered by AI is too dangerous for right now. Something like Terminator will, most likely, never happen, but if checks are not placed on AI weaponry before it goes too far, then there may be real problems in the future.

Why Low Yield Nuclear Weapons are a Bad Idea

The Federation of American Scientists announced on January 29th that the new W76-2 low yield nuclear warhead has been deployed. This is a low yield variant of a warhead traditionally carried on the Trident missile. The Pentagon confirmed on February 4th that this warhead was requested, designed, and produced under the Trump administration. Undersecretary of Defense, John Rood, claimed that the benefits from this weapon, “strengthens deterrence and provides the United States a prompt, more survivable low-yield strategic weapon; supports our commitment to extended deterrence; and demonstrates to potential adversaries that there is no advantage to limited nuclear employment because the United States can credibly and decisively respond to any threat scenario” (Defense News). 

The W76-2 warhead has been deployed on the USS Tennessee (SSBN-734), which already has the capacity to fire high yield nuclear weapons. This is cause for major concern as if any of the weapons are fired, it is likely that the adversary will assume the high yield has been fired, and will respond with a high yield weapon of their own. Supporters of the low yield system, however, believe that this will be a strong effort towards deterrence of Russian nuclear weapons. US defense officials believe that Moscow would use low yield nuclear weapons to prevent the US from entering or extending conflict under the “escalate to de escalate” doctrine. Due to the fact that the US only had high yield weapons previously, the thinking goes that the US would hesitate to use it. 

This raises further concerns about rationalizing the use of nuclear weapons in a conventional setting. The low yield nuclear weapons were designed to carry a smaller payload than the one detonated in Hiroshima, Japan during World War II. Due to the smaller explosive power of these weapons, it would be far easier for a country to rationalize using it against a conventional adversary. The blowback from this could be devastating as it would be the first time a nuclear weapon has been used since World War II. If a country can rationalize the use of low yield nuclear weapons against conventional adversaries, it then becomes a slippery slope that could lead to all out nuclear warfare. 

Low yield nuclear weapons may help promote deterrence in the short run, however, it is likely to heighten tensions between nuclear powers. The idea that low yield weapons could possibly be used in a conventional setting is frankly quite startling and could spell disaster during war time or in times of peace. These weapons could also bring about a new nuclear arms race. Instead of racing for the biggest, baddest nuclear weapons, the race could now be for a nuclear weapon with the lowest yield. The W76-2 has a blast yield of around 100 kiltons(kt) which is almost ten times the yield of the weapon dropped on Hiroshima. It is startling to think that this weapon could be considered low yield, and even more startling to think that a weapon like this could potentially be used in a conventional setting.