Cuttin' Grass and Kickin' Ass: Autonomous Robots in the Future

Technological innovations throughout history have changed the face of warfare.  Nations who were able to adopt the newest technologies and incorporate them in their tactical and strategic battle plans had a marked advantage over other nations that lagged behind.  One of the newest technologies that may revolutionize warfare is the coupling of artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics to create autonomous and semi-autonomous robots.  The evolution and development of autonomous weapon systems has been met with concern by some who question the morality of employing such weapons.  However, autonomous robots and weapons systems will play and important role in the future of warfare and the world will not be able to completely stop their employment.

The morality of utilizing autonomous weapon systems in warfare has undoubtedly raised concerns throughout the world.  Recently, over 100 leaders in the technology field sent an open letter to the United Nations requesting a ban on automated weapons.  These specialists believe that autonomous weapons systems are morally reprehensible and deserve to be banned under the UN Convention on 21 nations (I don't count Palestine) are calling for a ban on autonomous weapon systems.   Of the nations calling for a ban, only a few, if any, would be likely to obtain the technology and employ it as a means to lessen the combat power gap between its rivals.  So, who is attempting to open Pandora's box?
Certain Conventional Weapons.  While their concern is understandable, only

The US and China are leading the way when it comes to autonomous weapon systems with ol' Vlady Putin picking up slack in the back.  In 2016, the Chinese held a month-long competition titles "Overcoming Obstacles 2016" in which teams competed in multiple categories by demonstrating the capabilities of their autonomous robots.  In addition, China has announced plans to develop an autonomous multi-role surface vessel named the D3000.

Indeed, the United States is the current leader of the pack when it comes to autonomous weapon systems.  The DARPA developed anti-submarine warfare ship "Sea Hunter" is the first autonomous ship to be launched for testing by the US.  The Sea Hunter has recently completed its sea trial and has C-RAM and the M15 Phalanx CIWS.  Although the US may be in the lead, Russia has expressed interest in automated weapon systems and has been testing their tech as well.
been turned over to the Office of Naval Research for further development.  The US has also met with success in developing defensive automated technologies such as the

Russia recently held a series of tests at a proving ground outside of Moscow in which they tested the Nerekhta.  This unmanned ground vehicle is still being developed but Russia has indicated its desire to use these as an autonomous ground cruise missile (of sorts).  Colonel Pomazuev of the Russian military stated at a recent weapons testing that Russia already has a semi-autonomous tank with a remotely operated turret in the works.

What is clear from all this is that Russia and China have demonstrated their position on how they plan to utilize autonomous robots in warfare.  This is not surprising as China and Russia are desperately trying to close the power gap with the US.  Technologies such as autonomous weapon systems will give those who wield them an advantage.  Autonomous robots will be developed and they will play a definitive role in warfare.  More than likely, the role will encompass both lethal and non-lethal tasks as countries struggle to close the power gap.


Photo Credit: Runaway & Big Think

The Long Way Home

The South China Sea will be hosting a new warship in March. Britain has announced the plans to sail a warship through the disputed waters next month. The Royal Navy Type 23 frigate HMS Sutherland will voyage through the South China Sea while returning from Australia. British Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson confirmed these claims on Tuesday. He stated the Sutherland will be traversing the waters as an act of asserting their freedom of navigation. This is not the first time the UK has made these claims. Last year Michael Fallon (former Defense Secretary) stated the UK will not be intimidated from sailing through the South China Sea. It is unclear how close the ship will sail near disputed land, but it is clear the UK supports the United States presence in the region.

Numerous claims have come out condemning the statement the UK has made. Chinese media outlets are calling it a political stunt; a way for the UK to reclaim a place on the global stage. Statements were made using derogatory language to undermine the British plan. Chinese writers even stated the journey may be too difficult for the British Royal Navy considering their recent struggles, which include budget cuts as well as an aircraft carrier with a leak.

Perhaps this is a strategic move to show the UK’s right to navigate these waters. British officials, among others, are calling this a freedom of navigation (FON) operation. Perhaps the Chinese see it for what it really is, a political move to put Britain back in the headlines of global, international news. Skeptics wonder if this could be a play for the long run. Britain will be leaving the European Union next year and will be in search of potential partners in the future. It is no secret that China has lent their ear to British officials for discussion on this matter. China is a very possible trade partner for the British going forward. In fact, earlier this month Prime Minister Theresa May visited the nation. British international trade secretary, Liam Fox, publicly stated that people should pay attention to May on the world stage.

The true motives for the non-traditional passage of the South China Sea by the HMS Sutherland remains unclear. Whether it is a tactic fueled by military strategy, political notoriety, or a combination of the two is of little importance. The importance, and the fact, is that next month a British warship will be navigating the highly disputed waters regardless of what critics and naysayers may think. This leaves us with a number of questions, will this inspire other nations to practice FON operations, will the plan be a waste of time and resources, will the UK gain more international media attention? Only time will tell what impact this may have on the “big picture” and whether or not taking the long way home will be truly worth it.

Image Credit: BBC

Approaching China and the South China Sea

            The South China Sea is one of the most hotly disputed areas of the world. There are six different countries at odds over the South China Sea. China, Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Brunei all have competing territorial and jurisdictional claims in the region. Although China insists it has indisputable sovereignty in the region, the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has ruled in favor of Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Brunei on their claims of their exclusive economic zones (EEZs). They have this right under UNCLOS.

            China’s claim has no legal basis. This is only disputed by China itself. For China, the islands of the South China Sea hold much more strategic value than any land border. A claim to all the sea gives China a power projection into the Indian and Pacific Oceans as well as control over some of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. Don’t forget about the hydrocarbons located there. It has been estimated that the amount of oil and natural gas in the South China Sea is similar to the Middle East (Stavridis, 2017). The area is so important to China that they ignore legality and are prepared to back its claims with military power. What is concerning about a military conflict in the South China Sea is all the artificial islands China has already constructed plus the islands they have beefed up militarily. Imagine a hundred islands acting like unsinkable aircraft carriers scattered throughout the region. This definitely shifts the balance between two competing militaries.

            What should the United States do in regard to the South China Sea? First, communications between the US and China need to remain open in order to reduce the chance of inadvertent collision, especially between China and its immediate neighbors. The US also needs to strengthen its relationships with key allies and partners in the region. They will be essential to US policy on the South China Sea. The US should remain steadfast in reminding the international community how China’s approach to the area is against the tenets of international law. They should also finally sign the UNCLOS in order to legitimize themselves in arguments on international sea law. Finally, the US should continue freedom of navigation operations to show China that their unjustified historical claims hold no water.

Cyber Sanctions?

View image | gettyimages.com

Obama in Louisville, KY on April 2, 2015 at Indatus, a company that provides cloud based communication applications, hardware and infrastructure.

On Wednesday, President Obama signed a new executive order that "authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, to impose sanctions on those individuals and entities that he determines to be responsible for or complicit in malicious cyber-enabled activities that are reasonably likely to result in, or have materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, economic health, or financial stability of the United States."

In other words, if you hack the US government and cause a threat to the security (financial or physical), the government can now freeze your bank account or impose a visa ban. These are similar impositions, the White House claims, to counter-terrorism orders.

The way that Obama authorized this Executive Order is the same way that past presidents have done for the 1933 banking crisis or the Korean War or even a 1971 response to inflation.

But further, this order "blocks property of those found to be responsible" for the attacks or it could freeze the assets of of any company that is in the US that has used stolen US intellectual property for a commercial advantage. As some journalists have pointed out, if taken to its logical conclusions, the law could lead to a visa ban on some foreign executives or even the seizure of data centers.

They hope to deter potential attackers by giving them something to consider when deciding to illegally hack the US. In addition, they “don’t want to just deter those with their fingers on the keyboard but those who are funding and enabling those groups to carry out their activity,” said Michael Daniel, special adviser to the president on cybersecurity.

However, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Errata Security both expressed concern over the administrations ability to arbitrarily seize their assets or indite researchers or security consultants who hack to determine vulnerabilities. 

What will be interesting in the coming years is how exactly this will be applied. Journalist, security advisers, and academics have been hard pressed to come up with examples. The Sony attack would not count. The denial of service attacks against banks might have counted. So what WILL count?

That remains to be seen.

"One Does Not Visit the Temple for Nothing" - Chinese Proverb

China isn’t content with expanding to Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa.  Lately, it has been talking with Brazil and other South American countries about infrastructure development.  Now, China is thinking about investing in an EU government bailout fund.

European countries like Spain and Italy are facing rising debts, although their debt ceiling is already the highest in the eurozone.  Most of the Western investors are uncertain as to whether or not to loan more to EU countries.  If the Italian economy collapses, that is bad news for investors and could start a domino effect across the eurozone as confidence in repayment measures wanes.  Austerity measures can’t be implemented ad infinitum either, so what else can be done? Stop the hand wringing…China is interested in buying European bonds which would infuse new life into the eurozone!

China and Europe have always had a relationship, but the EU is now China’s largest trading partner. Whereas China is interested in a return politically from the EU in exchange for economic help, what kind of long-term outlook will they require from the European people?  Will it want a blind eye towards human rights abuses and breaking trade rules, solidarity in UN Security Council resolutions, or will it welcome European aid in Chinese development projects? What about gaining full market economy status? China doesn’t give without getting something in return and it will expect something just as sizeable in return.

An Air Force Academy graduate had to write a paper about how a country could take over the United States. He wrote that China has already (hypothetically) been investing in sleeper cells all across America, by placing Chinese restaurants in every little town. Ingenious, but it doesn’t seem that China needs stealth to take over…it just needs to wait for economic failures to engulf a country, one continent at a time.