hanging y a thread — our onnection to war y me6 alvin seah ...€¦ · soldiers will shift our...

Hanging By A Thread — Our Connection To

War

By ME6 Calvin Seah Ser Thong

November 2020

Hanging By A Thread — Our Connection To War

2

HANGING BY A THREAD — OUR

CONNECTION TO WAR By ME6 Calvin Seah Ser Thong

ABSTRACT

According to the author, autonomous technology is increasingly adopted by the various military forces around the

world. In fact, there is a wide proliferation of robots which are being used to replace humans for many tasks, even

in the battlefield. However, the author feels that the adoption of autonomous technology creates a distinct

distance between the ‘operator’ and his targets and has moral implications. In his essay, the author first highlights

the trends in war. He then details the advent of autonomous technologies. He further adds that there is a role and

place for both autonomous and manned systems in the future battlefield. He feels that the key is to strike a balance

and be able to get the best out of each. While an autonomous system might be able keep a human out of harm's

way, there is a possibility that using an autonomous system can blind us to war and the real destruction it brings.

The main drawback of using autonomous systems is that it may become easy to wage wars, thereby treading into

moral and ethical issues. The author concludes however that it is the human element that is still crucial in the final

outcome between autonomous and manned systems.

Keywords: Autonomous, Swarming, Ethical, Exploitation, Psychological

INTRODUCTION

From the confines of his windowless box, he

focused his camera onto three suspected insurgents

walking down a road in Afghanistan. He was told that

they had rifles, but for all he knew, they could be

shepherds with their staffs. However, the instruction

from his chain of command was clear. His targeting laser

locked on—three … two … one—and his Hellfire flared

to life. This was his second kill of the night. As time

passed, he realised that his job had made him numb.

Once he donned his flight suit, he slipped into ‘zombie

mode’. This was recounted by former United States Air

Force (USAF) drone operator Airman First Class Brandon

Bryant, to GQ in the article, ‘Confessions of a Drone

Warrior.’2 He describes efforts by drone crews to help

US troops avoid harm and of atrocities he saw

committed by militants. He remains haunted by the

horror of killing people thousands of miles away as he

sat safely tugged in a bunker, but he is just one of many

who have experienced this common scenario in the age

of autonomous technology.3 In recent times, this very

image of Drone Warriors tucked safely in their bunkers

miles away from the theatre has become a symbol of

distance in warfare.4 Even so, the US Department of

Defense (DoD) has repeatedly insisted that using drones

prevents the deaths of soldiers and protects the nation

from terror threats.5

It has been reported that robots are increasingly

moving from the gear shop into the field. Predictions in

the shipments of military robots show a continual

increase as shown in Figure 1. In fact, autonomous

technology is keenly pursued by militaries and we now

bear witness to robots that are developed purely for

military purposes.6 With its wide proliferation and utility

to replace humans for many tasks, autonomous

technology has been regarded as the holy grail for

militaries7. However, as highlighted earlier, their use

creates a distinct distance between the ‘operator’ and

his targets and strike a fine line between morality or

otherwise. International diplomats have therefore

continued to meet to discuss on regulating autonomous

military weapons under international humanitarian

laws.8 In his commentary on the future of war, blog

editor Matt Novak mentions that ‘autonomous robot

“And although to the United States, a drone strike

seems to have very little risk and very little pain, at

the receiving end, it feels like war.”

- Retired United States (US) General,

Stanley McChrystal1

3


soldiers will shift our understanding of what it means to

fight and to wage war … these technologies mean we

have lost any connection to war and the real world

destruction that it brings.’10 —This essay thus explores

the legitimacy of this claim. In the first part of the essay

the author will highlight the trends in war. In the second

part, he will detail the advent of autonomous

technologies.11 Thereafter, the author will discuss the

potential reasons that support the notion and finally

conclude that it is indeed true that autonomous

technology has diminished our connection to war.

TRENDS IN WAR

Despite the fact that we have witnessed the

proliferation of military robots, has the nature of war

really changed? Globalisation has definitely changed the

security paradigm in the world. This has led to a

decrease in interstate conflict and the rise of intrastate

conflict. Accordingly, states that are integrated into the

global economy appear less likely to use conventional

military forces.12 From an analysis of the changing

character of conflict, authors Frank Hoffman and Pat

Garrett have identified 11 trends shaping future conflict.

In terms of the scale of wars, they predicted the move

away from mass wars and that armies can expect their

operations to be concurrent, diverse and distant (See

Figure 1 for trends in armed conflict). This shift

necessitates a change in how leaders are prepared and

the need to develop small-unit excellence. Achieving

small-unit dominance will demand changes in how

tactical units are equipped, trained and prepared.

Globalisation has definitely

changed the security paradigm in

the world. This has led to a

decrease in interstate conflict and

the rise of intrastate conflict.

In terms of terrain, operations would shift from

open terrain to complex terrain. With urbanisation, the

future conflict environment will be more congested,

cluttered and contested (See Figure 2 for regional

trends in Urbanisation). The columnists cited retired US

Army General. Robert Scales who recommended that,

‘The technological challenge is to provide mounted and

dismounted small units greater survivability in the close

fight while remaining effective.’13 In terms of future

adversaries, they predicted the shift to more protean

enemies. The doctrines and capabilities of future

enemies will also be less predictable and more

ambiguous. The context for many contingencies will

also become more ambiguous and may incorporate

aspects of political conflict and unconventional warfare.

Future threats will increasingly use a combination

of hybrid options. These threats would transcend from

our typical domains of land, sea, air, space and into new

Figure 1: Global Trends in Armed Conflict, 1946-2015.9

4


domains such as cyberspace, and even the

electromagnetic spectrum, while reaching across

broader geographic ranges. Silos among the different

military services would therefore need to be breached.

Technological advancements in biotech, robotics, data

sciences, nanomaterial developments, and energy

production will advance commercial and military

applications. One of the greatest sources of innovation

in the future will be the combination of man and

machine. While unmanned systems have seen increased

capabilities, they still require skilled operators. And it is

this very trend that heralds the rise of autonomous

robot operators.

ADVENT OF AUTONOMOUS TECHNOLOGY

The early incentive for ‘Unmanned’ or

autonomous systems was to take over the duties

performed by humans or manned systems that involved

the 3Ds, ‘dull’ (involving long periods or repetitive

operations), ‘dirty’ (involving operations in

contaminated environments), or ‘dangerous’ (involving

operations in which the danger to humans and manned

systems are deemed excessively high, such as

minesweeping or explosive ordnance disposal).15 With

the evolution of unmanned technology, modern

warfare is seeing an increasing use of autonomous

technology. The US in particular has deployed

thousands of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in its

recent campaigns, with ‘nearly four times as many

drone strikes in Pakistan during the first two years of

the Obama administration as there were during the

entire Bush administration.’16 In fact, the USAF currently

trains more drone operators than it does fighter pilots.17

The current trends in autonomous systems have seen

an increased interest towards the interoperability of

autonomous systems. With the latest advances in

autonomous technology, we now see autonomous

systems performing far beyond their earlier envisioned

uses and placing increasing firepower and control into

the operator’s hands.

With the latest advances in

autonomous technology, we now

see autonomous systems

performing far beyond their

earlier envisioned uses and

placing increasing firepower and

control into the operator’s hands.

Swarming

Swarming which is inspired by swarms of insects,

are groups of small independent unmanned vehicles

that co-ordinate their operations to accomplish goals as

an intelligent group, with or without human

supervision. It may be a heterogeneous mix of machines

with dissimilar tasks but contributing to an overall

mission objective.18 The advantage in swarm technology

is that a drone swarm can take multiple hits,

reconfigure and keep going. They may even provide an

economic advantage as the adversary is forced to track

multiple, low value targets instead of a high valued

one19. In a recent test in October 2016, the US DoD

Figure 2: Regional trends in Urbanisation.14

5


Strategic Capabilities Office collaborated with the Naval

Air Systems Command to conduct a test in which three

F/A-18 Hornet aircraft dispersed 104 Perdix micro-

drones that swarmed, and performed a series of

designated ‘missions’—including finally swarming in a

circle around a designated point on the ground (Figure

3).20 With this success, it is believed that unmanned

systems can take on some dangerous missions in the

future, thereby protecting the warfighter, and yet do

that in great numbers at a fraction of the cost of a

manned system.21

Systems Teaming

As manned and unmanned systems possess

different strengths and weaknesses, teaming an optimal

mix of assets can create a more powerful, functional

synergised system. Thus, a smaller number of high value

assets could work in concert with a larger number of

cheaper ones for better cost-effectiveness.22 In the US,

the amount of time, effort, and resources expended on

Army Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) research

and development have grown exponentially in the past

two decades.23 In 2016, the US Army reported great

success in the use of MUM-T in both Iraq and

Afghanistan.24 In the latest development, USAF and

Lockheed Martin’s advanced projects unit, ‘Skunk

Works’, have completed a series of flight tests

demonstrating the teaming of manned and unmanned

F-16 fighter jets in mock combat operations. With the

success of MUM-T technology, the Air Force plans to

begin flying aircraft equipped to control a full ‘Loyal

Wingman’ drone formation in 2018.25

SHIFTING OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IT MEANS TO FIGHT AND TO

WAGE WAR

With the advent of autonomous technology, it is

clear that the wars of the future will feature

autonomous robot soldiers. But will they shift our

understanding of what it means to fight and to wage

war? While autonomous technologies possess many

advantages, I will next point out the controversies

brought about by autonomous technologies that will

create the shift distancing us from the horrors of war.

Figure 3: Swarm of drones circling in an attack.26

6


Moral and Ethical Issues

One question that looms in the military use of

unmanned systems is that, ‘who decides who lives or

dies?’ Most high-ranking military men and futurist

philosophers believe that robots should not be allowed

to kill anyone unless a human being is in the loop, which

may lead towards the future of ‘Video Game Warfare’.27

However, it has been argued that the inherent design of

military drones limits the ability of humans to be in full

intelligent control of them. Thus, even if a so called

moral agent is controlling the drone, the outcomes of

the actions of the socio-technical ensemble may not be

moral.28 The United Kingdom (UK) Approach to

Unmanned Aircraft Systems was convened by British

defence officials to study the case of unmanned systems

amid mounting controversy over drone use against

insurgents on the Afghanistan and Pakistan borders. The

study iterates that, ‘it is essential that before unmanned

systems become ubiquitous (if it is not already too late)

… we ensure that, by removing some of the horror, or at

least keeping it at a distance, we do not risk losing our

controlling humanity and make war more likely.’29

The US DoD has similarly advocated that military

weapons maintain human control and its Directive

3000.09 requires a high-ranking defence official to

approve unusual uses of autonomous technology and

calls for those systems to always keep ‘appropriate

levels of human judgment over the use of force.’30

Another question that looms is, ‘could the targeted

persons have been captured rather than killed?’ A case

which fuels this question is the series of drone strikes by

the US in Pakistan and Yemen in 2011 which reportedly

killed as many as 15 persons in Pakistan and 2 in

Yemen.31 Even though former President Obama had

proclaimed that the US ‘does not take strikes when we

have the ability to capture individual terrorists,’ a

Human Rights Watch report in 2013 had detailed drone

strikes in which the targeted persons could have been

captured instead of killed.32

Ease of Waging Wars

Autonomous systems have been coined

inventions that make it easier to wage war. The

increased separation of the operator from the actual

battlefield reduces the ethical and moral dilemma a

person must overcome before he can duly justify taking

a human life. Coupled with a complex causal chain

involving a ‘chain of command’, it becomes easier for a

Drone operator to psychological distance himself from

the consequences of his actions. As a result of killing in a

professional capacity, he may not regard himself as a

murderer.33

On a larger scale, countries can now easily go to

war without risking the lives of their soldiers.34 In a

study of a decade of lethal killings by drones, indications

show that the availability of drones has resulted in the

Figure 4: (MUM-T) squadron, combining Boeing AH-64D/EApache with Textron Systems Shadow UAV.35

7


resort to military force that would not otherwise

occur.36 Politically, drones present national leaders a

simple answer in partaking in campaigns. They can

assure their allies that they are still making a major

military commitment while at the same time assure

their people that they are not risking their nationals as

there are no ‘boots on the ground.’ As a matter of fact,

autonomous systems need not even be operated by

combat fit soldiers. All that is required is a person who

can follow the instructions to operate the system, be it a

teenager, child or even a couch potato.

The increased employment of robots to kill has

also made it easier to control the narrative of conflict as

well. Wars are usually messy affairs and are rarely black

and white. Yet autonomous systems that fire precision

bombs and guided missiles have possibly reduced war

to a video game with good guys and bad guys. It is not

pure coincidence that many of the computer interfaces

for modern weapons take after game controllers and

consoles.37 In the confession of former American

Autonomous robot operator Brandon Bryant, he

recalled that after leaving the force upon completing six

years on the job, he was presented a scorecard covering

his achievement. It read, ‘Total enemies killed in action:

1,626.’38 Indeed, everything was treated just like

another report card and was devoid of humanity.

Non-Conformance To International Laws

The rules of warfare necessitate ‘combatants’ to

be reasonably well demarcated, so that there is a

distinction on who can or cannot be targeted.

Accountability now becomes an issue when the only

opposition on the battlefield is an autonomously

controlled robot. In many reported cases, the enemy is

often taken down while engaged in clearly non-

combative situations, getting blasted unsuspectingly

during daily activities in a typically civilian facility than in

an approved strategic military target area. In such

situations, the unsuspecting target does not defend

against the perpetrators and is instead, ‘assassinated’

without a trial or any due process.39 Furthermore, Rule 1

of the International Humanitarian Law states that

parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish

between civilians and combatants.40 Thus, targeting

from a distance in the heat of a conflict could

exacerbate opportunities for contravention.

Possible Exploitation of Children

While international law does not prevent the

prosecution of children who commit war crimes, article

37 of the United Nations(UN) Convention on the Rights

of the Child limits the punishment that a child can

receive including ‘Neither capital punishment nor life

imprisonment without possibility of release shall be

imposed for offences committed by persons below

eighteen years of age.’41 To contravene International

law, we may see children being exploited to fight the

war with the ease of operating unmanned technology

nowadays. The children might be led to think that they

are playing video games, but in fact they are killing

someone somewhere on a battlefield that is miles away.

In fact, reports have seemed to suggest that the US

military have targeted the recruitment of gamers as

young as twelve years old as US drone pilots. The

reports have also claimed that the ‘skillsets’ of young

players are currently still sought by US and European

forces.42

Accountability now becomes an

issue when the only opposition on

the battlefield is an autonomously

controlled robot.

Unaccountability and Anonymity

Unaccountability may present itself due to the

concept of distance—both psychological and

geographical. Psychologically, operators may distance

themselves from the consequences of their actions as

they may have regarded that they had killed in a

professional rather than in a personal capacity.

Geographical distance is often regarded as a precursor

to psychological distance. Thus, geographical distance

from where the killing occurs makes it relatively easy to

psychologically distance oneself from the consequences

of one’s actions.43 For operators, they may feel

unaccountable if the autonomous weapons are so

complex that they feel that it is the weapon and not

themselves that is doing the killing.44 They may even

hide behind the anonymity of a faceless robot.

8


Psychological Stress

While it may sound unusual, human operators

who operate autonomous drones are susceptible to the

same psychological stress that infantrymen sometimes

experience after combat. In fact, Post Traumatic Stress

Disorder (PTSD) rates among UK and US Reaper crews

are similar to the rates found in manned aircraft pilots.45

For drone operators in the US, many of them steer their

armed drones via satellite from air-conditioned trailers,

however combat stress can be accentuated by the

contrast between their jobs and their otherwise

peaceful surroundings. Missy Cummings, a

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) drone

developer and former pilot recounts that’, You shoot a

missile, you kill a handful of people. And then—this is

what is strange—you go home. Your shift is over’. She

further adds that, ‘When you fight in a war without

living in a combat zone, it’s harder to keep it in

perspective.’ Even though the pilots are killing from a

virtual or remote site, it is difficult for them to shift the

feeling of responsibility or offload their feelings to the

robots. Thus, this places a moral and emotional burden

on the pilots and can lead to psychological stress akin to

that of a PTSD developed by their other combatant

counterparts.46

LOSING OUR CONNECTION TO WAR

AND THE REAL DESTRUCTION THAT IT

BRINGS

Based on the earlier controversies brought about

by the use of autonomous technologies to wage war,

the author concluded that they would likely lead to the

loss of life and result in deaths in unparalleled

proportions. While a robot army can reduce the human

risk of invasion, they would trim the threshold to war

and thus increase the optimism to wage wars. They

would create the distance between weapon users and

the deadly force that they can unleash, thus creating a

video game that erases morality. Distanced from the

nausea of butchery, an aggressor can murder without

batting an eyelid and victims become mere digits in

spreadsheets. In addition to being physically removed

from any kinetic action, humans would also become

more detached from making decisions to kill and

commit execution.47 In a split second, targets can be

killed with the flip of a button.

While it may be argued that there are

psychological demands placed upon autonomous pilots

and possible civilian fatalities due to flawed intelligence,

these same arguments similarly apply to conventional

warfare. In fact, militaries such as the US military are

already working towards reducing instances of drone

operator PTSD by alleviating the combat stress felt by

them.48 The UN report on lethal autonomous robots

aptly sums up that the use of autonomous robots,

‘numbs us to what it means for others to suffer in war,

our bandoliered androids would help us forget what it

means for us to suffer in war. The cost of conflict would

be purely economic, a chance of busted springs and

fried wires. Skirmishes abroad would become

noncommittal, capricious and arbitrary, opening the

gate to perpetual carnage.’ All of the factors discussed

above would definitely tip the scale and show that

autonomous technologies will indeed make us lose our

connection to war and the real destruction that it

brings.

CONCLUSION

There is a role and place for both autonomous

and manned systems in the future battlefield. The key is

to strike a balance and be able to get the best out of

each. While an autonomous system might be able keep

a human out of harm's way, the controversies that

come with using an autonomous system can blind us to

war and the real destruction it brings. The main

drawback of using unmanned systems however would

be whether we are making it easy to wage wars and

thereby treading into moral and ethical issues. In the

end, the human factor is still crucial as aptly summed up

by the following quote:

“The human factor will decide the fate of war, of all

wars. Not the Mirage, nor any other plane, and not the

screwdriver, or the wrench or radar or missiles or all the

newest technology and electronic innovations.”

- Ezer Weizman

Air Force Commander, Israeli Defence Forces 49

9


ENDNOTES

1. “A Conversation with Stanley McChrystal,” Foreign Affairs, March/April 2013 Issue, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/interviews/2013-02-11/generation-kill.

2. Matthew Power, “Confessions of a Drone Warrior,” GQ, 22 October 2013, http://www.gq.com/story/drone-uav-pilot-assassination.

3. “Retired US drone operator tells of the turmoil he feels after killing by remote control,” News Corp Australia Network, 25 October 2013, http://www.news.com.au/world/retired-us-drone-operator-tells-of-the-turmoil-he-feels-after-killing-by-remote-control/news-story/ed015921260a8e31190a4ac3a1967466.

4. Dr. Alex Leveringhaus, “Autonomous weapons mini-series: Distance, weapons technology and humanity in armed conflict,” Humanitarian Law & Policy, 6 October 2017, http://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2017/10/06/distance-weapons-technology-and-humanity-in-armed-conflict/.

5. Jethro Mullen, “Report: Former drone operator shares his inner torment,” CNN, 25 October 2013, http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/23/us/drone-operator-interview/index.html.

6. Jack Detsch, “The Rise of Military Robot R&D: A Global Phenomenon,” The Diplomat, 22 May 2015, http://thediplomat.com/2015/05/the-rise-of-military-robot-rd-a-global-phenomenon/.

7. ME5 Calvin Seah Ser Thong, ME5 Tang Chun Howe and ME4 (NS) Lee Weiliang Jerome, “Unmanned Technology - The Holy Grail for Militaries?” POINTER 38, no. 4 (2013).

8. “Diplomats discuss laws for autonomous military weapons,” Business Insider, 20 April 2016, http://www.businessinsider.com/diplomats-discuss-laws-for-autonomous-military-weapons-2016-4?IR=T&r=US&IR=T.

9. Source: http://www.systemicpeace.org/conflicttrends.html.

10. Matt Novak, “Robot history: The rise of the drone,” BBC, 4 April 2012, http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120403-robots-go-to-war.

11. I Will discuss autonomous technology based on Matt Novak’s commentary where he equates it to unmanned technology. Therefore, it does not connote fully autonomous technology that does not require any human decisions. It was predicted by experts that fully autonomous weapons could be achieved in only 20 to 30 years.

12. Capt. Johnny Sokolosky Jr., “The Future of War - How Globalization is Changing the Security Paradigm,” Military Review, Jan-Feb 2016.

13. Past and Present as Prologue, Future Warfare through the lens of contemporary conflicts Source:http://usrs-web-d01.humancaresystems.com/publications/reports/the-past-and-present-as-prologue-future-warfare-through-the-lens-of-contemporary-conflicts

14. Source:http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2001ClimateChangeImpactsandEmergingPopulationTrendsARecipeforDisaster.aspx.

15. Mike Hammer, “A Few God Bots,” in Rise of the Robots, ed. Neil Fine, (New York: Time Home Entertainment, 2013).

16. Job, C. Henning, “Wanted – a doctrine for use of Drones,” TODAY, Comment & Analysis, 22 February 2012.

17. Matt Novak, “Robot history: The rise of the drone,” BBC, 4 April 2012, http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120403-robots-go-to-war.

18. Puneet Bhalla, “Emerging Trends in Unmanned Aerial Systems,” Scholar Warrior, Autumn 2015

19. Lara Seligman, “How Swarming Drones Could Change the Face of Air Warfare,” DefenseNews, 17 May 2016, http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2016/05/17/drone-air-force-swarm-mini-uas/84496780/

20. Sean Gallagher, “DOD successfully tests terrifying swarm of 104 micro-drones,” Ars Technica, 13 January 2017, https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/01/dod-successfully-tests-terrifying-swarm-of-104-micro-drones/

10


21. David Smalley, “Autonomous Swarmboats: New Missions, Safe Harbors,” Office of Naval Research, 14 December 2016, https://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2016/Autonomous-Swarmboats.

22. Puneet Bhalla, “Emerging Trends in Unmanned Aerial Systems,” Scholar Warrior, Autumn 2015.

23. COL Thomas von Eschenbach, “Unmanned Aircraft Systems - Manned-Unmanned Teaming,” Army Aviation, http://www.armyaviationmagazine.com/index.php/archive/not-so-current/589-unmanned-aircraft-systems-manned-unmanned-teaming.

24. Kris Osborn, “Army expands manned-unmanned helicopter teaming,” Defense Systems, 13 December 2016, https://defensesystems.com/articles/2016/12/13/apache.aspx.

25. Tamir Eshel, “Autonomous Strike – a New Milestone in Manned-Unmanned Teaming,” Defense Update, 10 April 2017, http://defense-update.com/20170410_have_raider.html.

26. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/01/dod-successfully-tests-terrifying-swarm-of-104-micro-drones/

27. Lance Winslow, “Unmanned Vehicle Robotic Warfare,” 18 May 2007.

28. Christopher Newman, “‘Moralization’ of Technologies – Military Drones: A Case Study,” E-International Relations Students, 2 May 2012, http://www.e-ir.info/2012/05/02/moralization-of-technologies-military-drones-a-case-study/.

29. UK Ministry of Defence, “UK Approach to Unmanned Aircraft Systems,” Joint Doctrine Note 2/11, 30 March 2011, http://www.parliament.uk/deposits/depositedpapers/2011/DEP2011-1514.pdf.

30. Eyder Peralta, “Weighing The Good And The Bad Of Autonomous Killer Robots In Battle,” NPR, 28 April 2016, http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/04/28/476055707/weighing-the-good-and-the-bad-of-autonomous-killer-robots-in-battle.

31. Mary Ellen O'Connell, “Seductive Drones: Learning from a Decade of Lethal Operations,” Journal of Law, Information & Science, Notre Dame Legal Studies Paper No. 11-35, August 2011.

32. “Between a Drone and Al-Qaeda,” Human Rights Watch, October 2013, https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/yemen1013_ForUpload.pdf.

33. Dr. Alex Leveringhaus, “Autonomous weapons mini-series: Distance, weapons technology and humanity in armed conflict,” Humanitarian Law & Policy, 6 October 2017, http://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2017/10/06/distance-weapons-technology-and-humanity-in-armed-conflict/.

34. S.A.S, “The Invisible Killers: Drones on the Rise,” accessed 15 August 2015, http://www.scattergood.org/sites/default/files/SS_Drones%20on%20the%20Rise.pdf.

35. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-army-establishes-first-manned-unmanned-unit-410504/.

36. Mary Ellen O'Connell, “Seductive Drones: Learning from a Decade of Lethal Operations,” Journal of Law, Information & Science, Notre Dame Legal Studies Paper No. 11-35, August 2011.

37. Thomas G. Vincent, “The Ethics of Robotic War,” The Ethical Spectacle, March 2009, http://www.spectacle.org/0309/vincent.html.

38. Matthew Power, “Confessions of a Drone Warrior,” GQ, 22 October 2013, http://www.gq.com/story/drone-uav-pilot-assassination.

39. The Conflict Source, “Unmanned Drones, and why they suck,” 30 December 2011, http://conflictsource.com/2011/12/30/combat-drones/.

40. ICRC, “Rules/Rule 1,” https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter1_rule1.

41. Lauren McCollough, “The Military Trial of Omar Khadr: Child Soldiers and the Law,” Crimes of War Project, 10 Mar 2008.

42. Dan Pearson, “War Games: the link between gaming and military recruitment,” gamesindustry.biz, 2 February 2015, http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2015-02-02-the-military-recruitment-of-gamers.

11


43. Dr Alex Leveringhaus, “Autonomous weapons mini-series: Distance, weapons technology and humanity in armed conflict,” Humanitarian Law & Policy, 6 October 2017, http://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2017/10/06/distance-weapons-technology-and-humanity-in-armed-conflict/.

44. Michael Horowitz and Paul Scharre, “The Morality of Robotic War,” The New York Times, 26 May 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/27/opinion/the-morality-of-robotic-war.html?_r=0.

45. Peter Lee, “Killing with drones is not ‘easy’,” The Conversation, 10 December 2013, http://theconversation.com/killing-with-drones-is-not-easy-21295.

46. Catherine Crier, “Anthropomorphized drones to reduce drone operator PTSD?” 17 June 2012, http://patriotacts.com/?p=1075.

47. United Nations, Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Christof Heyns, A/HRC/23/47, 9 April 2013.

48. Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2249252/Brandon-Bryant-Drone-operator-followed-orders-shoot-child--decided-quit.html.

49. Ezer Weizman, On Eagles' Wings: The Personal Story of the Leading Commander of the Israeli Air Force (New York: Macmillan, 1976).

ME6 Calvin Seah Ser Thong is currently a Branch Head in HQ Maintenance and

Engineering Support and had recently completed a secondment to the Land

Transport Authority. ME6 Calvin is an Army Engineer by vocation and is registered

as a Chartered Engineer (Singapore) under the Transportation Engineering Sector.

ME6 Calvin holds a Bachelors of Engineering in Mechanical & Production

Engineering from Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Master of Science in

Industrial and Systems Engineering from National University of Singapore (NUS)

and a Master of Science in Defence Technology and Systems from NUS obtained

under the SAF Postgraduate Award. He had also attained a Master of Science in

Human Capital Management from NTU under the SAF-NTU continuing education

Master Programme and was placed on the Nanyang Business School’s Dean’s List.

hanging y a thread — our onnection to war y me6 alvin seah ...€¦ · soldiers will shift our...

Documents