Robot sacrifice

Citation

Loughlin, C. (2010), "Robot sacrifice", Industrial Robot, Vol. 37 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/ir.2010.04937caa.001

Robot sacrifice

Article Type: Editorial From: Industrial Robot: An International Journal, Volume 37, Issue 3

As I write the last few weeks have been blighted by the return to the UK of dead bomb disposal personnel from Afghanistan.

They have fallen victim to improvised explosive devices (IEDs). These are landmines by another name but by their nature are “improvised” and therefore come in many shapes and sizes, with different explosives and different trigger mechanisms. Some use no metallic parts at all and rely on graphite rods to complete electric trigger circuits, others are much more crude. For many the explosive element has been recycled from unexploded ordnance – an ironic twist of fate that comes back to haunt its original users.

When I hear of another soldier being killed while working to detect or defuse IEDs I am filled both with admiration for the dedication and self-sacrifice of the personnel, and also with frustration and disappointment that people are still used for these demining activities.

Some of the very earliest work in robotic demining was started in 1976 by Prof. James Trevelyan of the University of Western Australia and over the years the CLAWAR conferences (climbing and walking robots) have reported on numerous ongoing research projects in this area.

The problem is far from simple and the goal posts keep moving as each side in a conflict aims to keep one step ahead of the opposition by innovating new ways both to detect and to avoid detection.

I find it difficult to reconcile the news footage of soldiers on patrol walking through streets and across countryside as they attempt to track down their highly mobile enemies, with the slow moving and heavy mobile robots that are often used as platforms for demining research activities.

It is one thing (and still a very significant and important thing) to demine a field so that it can be safely used by a farmer, when speed is not as important as thoroughness; and quite another thing to rapidly clear a path for troops to advance either by deactivating IEDs or marking their location.

A great deal of work is going on in this area that makes use of both ground based and aerial surveying equipment, but still people are dying because they are undertaking highly dangerous activities that should be done by robots. If a person gets killed doing a task that cannot be done by a robot then those that sent them in harm’s way can at least take solace that they had no other choice – sending in the person was the least bad option available. What then should we make of a situation when a person is killed doing a job that could have been done by a robot?

Readers of my editorials will already be aware of my opposition to the use of robots for aggressive action. In my view the fact that this goes against Asimov’s “Laws of Robotics” is the least of a whole raft of logical objections. So I am not at all suggesting that robots should replace people in aggressive military action.

In my view engineers become engineers because they enjoy the challenge and satisfaction of making things work, of being creative and of helping society. There cannot be many more worthwhile endeavours for robotics engineers than making a machine that keeps people out of harm’s way. In fact Asimov’s first law says it all – “A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm”.

We have not been inactive, but I hope we can do better in the future.

Clive Loughlin