Virtual war room: Insert cyber warfare operatives here.

Remote-controlled war. If the concept doesn’t scare the living daylights out of you, we don’t know what will. A recent report compiled by former White House Homeland Security advisor Paul Kurtz details an unfolding “Cyber Cold War” in which countries like the United States, Russia, China and Israel are preparing for cyber offensives by amassing cyber weapons and conducting espionage—all in preparation to use the Internet for war. The report titled “Virtually Here: The Age of Cyber Warfare” says that although we haven’t seen a ‘hot’ cyber war between major powers, there is evidence that nation-states are beefing up their cyberattack capabilities. The steady rise in computational power and global connectivity, along with accelerating technologies like artificial intelligence, magnify the threat of a catastrophic cyber event. But what’s even more alarming is what this could mean for the future of cyber terrorism. Make sure to check out the video below.

Hackers and criminals can do enough harm to foreign or domestic networks on their own, but when backed by nation states, the resources and potential of these mercenaries increase significantly. Millions flock to the World Wide Web for their share of real-time information via Twitter and other social media platforms. But in the blink of an eye, a multitude of connections could be pulled under by a single act of cyber terrorism, as we saw during the 2009 denial-of-service attack when Twitter, Google and other platforms were temporarily taken out by Georgian political activists. The world felt virtual aftershocks for days. But the effects of cyber terrorism aren’t confined to virtual space. Whole communications infrastructures, like air traffic control operations at airports, are vulnerable to attack. One wrong signal or communications blackout could mean a great number of casualties. What’s more is that cyber criminals can exploit weaknesses in networks, transforming personal computers into virtual Trojan armies. Cultivating botnets of computers worldwide can wreak havoc on networks by proliferating spam or harmful viruses. It can also flood those networks with false traffic—like what happens during a denial-of-service attack—in order to cripple portions of the global network, in effect using the most constructive attributes of connectivity for insidious purposes. But familiar scenarios like these raise little concern compared with those we haven’t yet faced.

Fifty years following the Internet’s conception, the most powerful governments can theoretically take out the power, water, communications, and information infrastructures of their adversaries without ever launching a single missile. And while advancements in artificial intelligence and robotics make it easier than ever to imagine wars without people, cyber warfare remains particularly disturbing because it lives entirely in virtual space. Because of the virtual nature of cyber warfare, it’s tough to track the origin of attacks and tougher still to track who is giving those orders. Nations like China and Russia are notorious for cyber crime—it’s easier to employ a mercenary to conduct your cyber espionage for you than to risk ruffling the feathers of another superpower. To compound the complexity, virtual space has always been much harder to regulate, and creating a legal framework for virtual activities is a challenge. How can governments survey—much less control—the mobilizing of cyber forces abroad? How can they effectively counter cyber espionage?

United States networks are targeted by foreign cyber attacks millions of times each day; to counter this, the current administration allocated more than 350 million dollars last year to secure the nation’s infrastructure and beef up intelligence around cyber activities. The U.S. has, in fact, added “cyber” as its own domain of military options, now joining land, sea and air. And while cyber threats are more than real, the nebulous nature of how and from where these attacks originate makes for an unstable situation between nation states. The AlJazeera video below gives a great overview:

Before we get too anxious, there is one conceivable failsafe. McAfee, the company that released the cyber warfare report, says that what might very well keep this war from escalating is the growing state of global interconnectedness; the same network that makes this war possible can also deter it. It’s a similar dynamic we’ve seen with the proliferation of nuclear arms—no government in their right mind would want to unleash the catastrophic effects of nuclear fallout on a global scale. But this rationale is predictable only when it comes to nation-states. There is still the matter of nations employing untraceable mercenaries to do their dirty work. There is also the question of how corporations might use cyber warfare to further profits and protect fortunes. Power in the hands of an unregulated (and largely invisible) few raises the stakes. Regulating online activities could mean a greater loss of privacy for web users in years to come. This could redefine consumer trust and what it means to be protected by one’s government. New laws will dictate how the Internet is used across the board. But at least we’ll be safe, right?

Because the way we conduct our conflicts reflects current states of society, terrorism will no doubt follow the trend of traditional warfare in seeking out new virtual battlefields. It’s a bit disconcerting to think of what a nameless hacker somewhere on the other side of the globe is capable of doing to us while we sleep. And that those orders could be anonymously coming from a government that doesn’t like us very much. Cyber warfare not only represents a new consequence for failed politics, but its informational nature suggests it may be more widely used by corporations and terrorists in years to come. The implications are far-reaching, the possibilities endless. Like nuclear war before it, cyber warfare shows us, in frightening fashion, the horrifying nature of our destructive potential. But unlike nuclear war, cyber warfare offensives can be committed by a single person with a computer anywhere in the world. This reality calls for radically different solutions. We will no doubt see the threat of cyber warfare escalate as technology accelerates toward the singularity. But the real question is how we will keep this growing menace in check, and what it will mean for the First Amendment and for communication in general.

[image credit: Equal-Life]
[video credit: AlJazeera]
[source: CNN, AlJazeera]

Could the iPhone replace the bulky controls of the Raven Drone?

UAVs and other military drones are an important part of the modernization of the US Army. The Raven drone is a light-weight surveillance platform that can be launched by hand. Unfortunately, it’s operating controls are a heavy briefcase like enclosure that has to be lugged around. That sort of discontinuity irks HAL team leader Prof. Missy Cummings. Cummings was once a F/A-18 Hornet fighter pilot for the Navy and saw the UAVs as a great way to prove that drone control could be light-weight, simple, and elegant. Her students were the ones that pointed out they could use iPhones. (They would all have to receive iPhones as part of their research, of course).

The proof of concept tests were done with a commercially available four-rotor spy drone called a micro aerial vehicel (MAV). The drone only cost about $5000 and flew well inside the MIT robotics range. Watching the ease at which the operator controls the MAV it is hard to believe that HAL got the project from conception to demonstration in just six weeks!

It’s kind of crazy what a simple iPhone app can do. Besides manual control, the iPhone operator can cue in locations that he or she wants the drone to travel to called waypoints. There are single touch keys for launch and landing, and streaming video appears right inside the app. All this and the phone can still receive calls, texts, etc.

If the military decides to pick up HAL’s work, it will drastically lighten the load of soldiers in the field and allow them an easier way to manage their drones. Certainly the application could be modified so that a single iPhone could serve as a control for several different drones on collaborative missions.

Outside of the military, commercial drones could find more popularity with the ease of use promised by an iPhone application. In the final video, we see how the MAV can explore a new region with a high level of autonomy using a webcam and laser range finder. That’s good news for everyone from cave explorers, to security guards, to rescue workers. We’re bound to see more people using light weight and simple drones in important roles in the years to come. After all, iPhone now has an App for that.

Release the Drones

Forget the future for a moment, and just consider our present. The U.S. military employs more than 7000 unmanned drones in operations all over the world. Even just 15 years ago, the number of active drones was just a few dozen at most. Now, the use of Predator drones is regularly covered by major media outlets. The Predator, an unmanned, remotely flown drone capable of delivering explosive payloads, is able to seek out and destroy hostile targets thousands of miles from the soldier controlling it. A Raven drone, another Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), is capable of short range reconnaissance and lightweight enough to be carried into the field by a foot soldier. See the video after the break.

These UAVs are just the tip of the drone iceberg. Besides specialized anti-munitions drones, defense turrets, and surveillance drones already in use, the U.S. military is developing rolling ground vehicles, water surface vehicles, and remote bombers that could all see action in the next few years. There are several competing models for each category, but the Crusher (ground), X-45 (air), and USV (water) are advanced enough to have videos available on the web. Each of these drones would be piloted by controllers many miles away from the field (eventually even from the other side of the world). Closer to home, pocket sized reconnaissance drones may become a part of every soldier’s arsenal  (like the Ember from iRobot we talked about recently) , allowing them to explore dangerous areas without risking their own skin.

Singularity Hub covered the release of P.W. Singer’s new book Wired for War, an overview of how war and technology are evolving together. Singer highlights how quickly drones have been adopted by the U.S. military, taking on mission-critical observation, hunter-killer, and counter-strike roles. The ability to remove a soldier from danger but keep him or her in direct control of a situation is so desirable that is it actively changing the way operations are planned and executed in the Iraq War. Unmanned drones are, in part, the U.S. answer to IEDs and guerilla warfare. In many situations drones not only keep humans from danger, but they also perform their duties better than a human could alone.

A predator drone releases a hell-fire missile.

Soldiers as Middle Managers

Not all robotic systems in the military are super-powered versions of remote-controlled vehicles. Many are reaching levels of autonomy that allow them to be observed rather than controlled. Primary and most widely-spread of these are targeting systems. Bomb and missile guidance requires pinpoint accuracy and split-second reactions. As such, most aircraft and naval level ballistic weapons are aimed and guided with computer assistance. Humans pull the trigger but computers hit the target. Often, the computers also tell the humans when they should pull the trigger in the first place.

Advanced drones like the Global Hawk or the CRAM often work with minimal interference by human controllers. The Global Hawk is an aerial drone that, according to P.W. Singer, is effectively replacing the U2 spy plane. It can take-off, fly 3000 miles, complete its mission, return and land autonomously. Human pilots set its mission parameters, but otherwise are minimally involved while it is in flight. CRAM (counter-rocket artillery mortar) is used in the Iraq Green Zone to provide automated turret defense against surprise rocket and rpg attacks. Much faster than a human could even begin to command it to fire, the CRAM shoots down harmful attacks completely based on its own parameters. Besides turning CRAM on and off, humans are negligible in its operation. By design.

This trend is set to continue. The data that drones collect is already too vast for humans to review on their own. New computer algorithms, or AIs will have to be developed to sift and prioritize this information. This will further push humans into a managerial role.

In the not too distant future, machines may take on very complex roles, such as security. Singularity Hub already discussed the way that security checks are advancing in form and function, and now those same security checks can be integrated into drone technology. Anti-sniper turrets could scan and recognize hostile objects or human posture, attacking with lethal or nonlethal countermeasures as needed. Once these systems prove themselves in field testing, the military will use them. The rapid adoption of drones is sure proof of that.

But can we trust computers and robots with situations in which they may use lethal force against civilians? Opponents to a computerized military often point out that computers will make errors, it’s inevitable, and they will kill innocent people. Maybe they’ll assume a man running from an explosion was responsible for setting a bomb, maybe they’ll shoot a smoking truck because it resembles a suicide bomb attack — the possible scenarios are nearly endless. Of course, humans have already made these exact same mistakes. We need to remember that no soldier, human or robotic, can perform perfectly and they often kill innocent civilians. That’s an argument against war altogether, but as long as robot/computer error is comparable or less than human error it’s no argument against using robots in the field.

Meet Soldier 2030

A concept photo for the U.S. Army's Future Soldier 2030 program.

As robotics and computer technologies improve, will humans even have a direct combat role? The U.S. Army is answering yes for now. Their Future Soldier 2030 program is an approach to augmenting human soldiers to become mobile combat platforms. Hundreds of millions are being spent on this new initiative and probable goals include: powered exoskeletons, advanced armor, enhanced metabolisms, advancing sensing, HUDs, and increased/variable lethality. If you’ve seen it in a science fiction movie, chances are the army is willing to consider it.

Under this initiative, the new soldier is viewed more as a machine than a grunt. Like all machines, it will be inspected to insure that it is well maintained. The Pentagon has been pursuing implantable Radio Frequency IDs (RFIDs) since 2007. These RFIDs should be able to not only track the solider of the future, but also relate his or her health to commanding officers back at base. Even with just $1.6 million in funding, the RFIDs are seen as a serious possibility for all field-operative soldiers.

And if a soldier is injured? The Pentagon recently completed phase one of its regrowing limbs research experiment. As of March of this year, military labs are able to turn skin cells into a blastema, a type of cell that can be converted into different kinds of tissue. The next phase will be to get that blastema to convert itself into muscle, bone, or nerve cells as needed.

DARPA is spending more than $4 million to try and make the future soldier telepathic. Singularity Hub loves to discuss mind-reading machines, and apparently DARPA does too. Rather than pursue some sort of traditional ESP, or telepathic communication, DARPA is looking into computer-mediated brain to brain networking. The soldiers of the future may be able to have their helmets read their thoughts and transmit them to their squad so that the entire unit can act as one.

In the short run, soldiers can look forward to simply lightening their loads. The typical operative in Afghanistan may carry up to 52 kg of equipment on his back. That’s around 60% of his own weight or more. By switching from many redundant power packs, armor pieces, and instruments to an open modular system, researchers are hoping to reduce that load to under 30 or even 25 kg. Such a system would allow soldiers to adapt the the armor and equipment they carry as situations change in the field. Where will they put the extra gear when it’s not in use? On a mule of course. The U.S. military has an unmanned autonomous vehicle, sometimes called the big dog, that will act as a walking storage platform. Check out the video. I find something about the way this thing moves very creepy:

[big dog robotic mule]

…and knowing is half the battle

With this huge wall of technology looming behind them, what do our military leaders plan on changing? First off, the budget. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates revamped the Pentagon’s budget in April so that it reflects not just the new kinds of technology, but also the new kinds of war. He plans on spending about 50% on conventional warfare, 10% on irregular warfare, and 40% on dual use materials and personnel. This includes a $2 billion dollar increase in drones like the Predator.

This shift in spending reflects the new combat situations that the U.S. military is facing. The U.S. really hasn’t fought a conventional war since Korea, maybe since WWII. Most of the military actions taken have been in asymmetric warfare situations: guerrilla tactics, counter-insurgency maneuvers, peace-keeping missions within civilian populations. Those aren’t the times to rely on big tanks, fighter jets, and battleships.

The wars of the future are going to focus on surveillance and information. Finding that one terrorist among the thousands of innocent civilians and neutralizing him or her quickly will be more important than devastating nuclear weapons. Quick assessments, and rapid reactions will dominate the field, and those requirements are best served by computers and machines, not humans. We are looking at a future where war is the split second recognition of a small, deadly threat that is eliminated by a computer.

And that, my friends, is where this goes from a serious and interesting discussion about technology to a rather scary realization about the future. Irregular wars? They look a lot like occupying forces performing police actions. Or like governments being able to kill dissenters in their beds. Even if we want to trust the soldier-managers of the new drone armies, they may be too far removed to feel the emotional impact that causes the common soldier to recoil from committing atrocities. How much do you regret killing someone in a video game? By replacing soldiers with computers we may be removing what little morality is in war.

At the same time, we may be increasing the number of people able to create a military. Most of the surveillance devices can be constructed or even purchased by civilians. According to P.W. Singer, spy drones are already in the hands of border-guard groups that have no official sanction by the U.S. military. While artillery is tightly controlled, these surveillance bots give a great tactical advantage in the field even if they’re not armed.

Undoubtedly the future of war will look different. Drones will take an ever increasing role, and in different sizes, from nanotechnology to huge air fortresses that don’t need to land but once a year. Those humans still in the field will be augmented by equipment outside and inside their bodies. The whole system will focus on quick reactions to small scale threats while still being ready for large-scale confrontations. These same tactics may creep into our police forces, or even find use by private citizens. Yet, despite these changes, some things about war will never change: it will be terrifying, deadly, undesirable, and perhaps necessary.

More videos:

[raven catch]

[german microdrone]

Just yesterday, P.W. Singer was interviewed on NPR and it is well worth a listen

Listen Now [38 min 47 sec]

Here is a summary of the book from the official website:

What happens when science fiction becomes battlefield reality?
An amazing revolution is taking place on the battlefield, starting to change not just how wars are fought, but also the politics, economics, laws, and ethics that surround war itself. This upheaval is already afoot — remote-controlled drones take out terrorists in Afghanistan, while the number of unmanned systems on the ground in Iraq has gone from zero to 12,000 over the last five years.  But it is only the start. Military officers quietly acknowledge that new prototypes will soon make human fighter pilots obsolete, while the Pentagon researches tiny robots the size of flies to carry out reconnaissance work now handled by elite Special Forces troops.

Wired for War takes the reader on a journey to meet all the various players in this strange new world of war: odd-ball roboticists working in latter-day “skunk works” in the midst of suburbia; military pilots flying combat mission from their office cubicles outside Las Vegas; the Iraqi insurgents who are their targets; journalists trying to figure out just how to cover robots at war; and human rights activists wrestling with what is right and wrong in a world where our wars are increasingly being handed over to machines.

Props to our reader, Bruce Colthart, who suggested this story