�鶹��ý

The landscape of conflict is changing. Reports from 21st century war zones describe localised conflicts with global implications in terms of food and energy supplies, displacement of populations and multi-nation involvement.

What’s more, advanced technologies, including autonomous systems and spacebased information-gathering, are raising new dilemmas about how these can and should be deployed. Add this to the growing impact of climate change — itself often a spark for conflict — and it is clear that conventional thinking about conflict is undergoing a profound change.

�鶹��ý recently explored this new thinking in a debate on the Future of Conflict, sponsored by BAE Systems. A panel of experts discussed the implications of drones, artificial intelligence and automated decision-making, the evergreen importance of information, and the military’s response to the rapidly-changing climate.

Lieutenant General Tom Copinger-Symes, Deputy Commander of UK Strategic Command, sees a major shift happening in the way we look at military capabilities. It used to be about “hardware” — planes, ships and tanks — but there is now an increasing power and influence that comes from having the best “software”: essentially, informationhandling platforms. “Hardware is still important, but these days your ability to compete and win is coming from the software and the data that you can get onto those platforms,” he said.

Andy Mitchell, a Deputy Director in Navy Command, agreed. “Electronic warfare — the digital, ‘cyber’ element — is much more prevalent now,” he said. “We have to look at how that changes how we’re going to fight, procure and operate.”

AI systems and simulation are likely to play a much more important role because they allow decision-makers to wargame different scenarios. Simulations also have a relatively low carbon footprint, said Julian Cracknell, Chief Technology & Information Officer at BAE Systems. “They allows us to think about the “what if…” situations, to simulate them many times and identify options to deescalate or prevent things happening,” he said.

Difficult decisions about future conflict are not always about how to procure and use the latest kit. When it comes to autonomous systems, decisions have to be taken about limiting their use too. “We’ve got fully automated systems at the moment, but we use them only in very specific circumstances,” said Mitchell.

That’s because many ethical and legal issues about decisions to use or invoke AI systems are still in flux. “What we’re really talking about is the issue of accountability,” said Patricia Lewis, an arms control expert at Chatham House, an independent policy unit. It’s not clear who is accountable for those decisions, she pointed out. “Is it the programmer? The procurer? The government? The military? Or the person who says ‘go ahead and let the machine do it’?”

There are no easy answers, but we are set to learn more as we implement military AI away from the action. “I like to look at the wider range of autonomous and robotic systems,” said Copinger-Symes. He cites logistics as an example: AI is dramatically speeding up the work of fulfilment centres, and we might learn a lot about optimising human responsibility from examining what goes on in those circumstances.

In the end, the best course of action will always involve hiring talented people who share and mould an organisation’s values. “The young people we are trying to get into defence, particularly in digital and cyber areas, care deeply about the values of the organisation that they work in,” said Copinger-Symes.

The next generation’s values tend to include facing up to, and minimising, the effects of climate change. ”They are expecting us to look after the planet; this is not debatable for them,” said Copinger-Symes.

That’s something that defence establishments in many parts of the world are trying to tackle — with mixed success.

“There is a very difficult challenge ahead for ministries of defence around the world to reduce their own carbon footprint,” Cracknell said. There are decisions to be made, for instance, about vehicle types and fuel types. “Most will come with some compromise from an operational point of view — do we pick a fuel that has a lower carbon emission but is less effective fuel from a combat perspective?”

Lewis points out that climate change will also affect the operations themselves. With more extreme weather events, melting Arctic ice opening up strategically important waters, the potential for food wars and mass migration, military decision-makers are facing a new set of challenges. “We need to think this through in terms of conflict prevention,” she said.

But the UK’s experts are reasonably optimistic that the right systems can be put in place to make the future better than the present. For Mitchell, that optimism comes from his confidence in colleagues, whether they are in defence, academia, industry or government and policy. “We’re at an inflection point, pivoting from hardware to digital, and changing the way we operate, but we’ve got the right people in place to deal with this,” he said.

More at: