SMALL WARS JOURNAL
smallwarsjournal.com
Riskless War: Technology, Coercive Diplomacy,
and the Lure of Limited War
Douglas Peifer
Just when critics have consigned the Revolution in Military Affairs and Transformation to the
dustbin of clichéd phrases, a fresh buzz of excitement is stirring among technophiles. Admiral
Arthur Cebrowski and his evangelists of network-centric warfare failed to come to grips with the
realities of small wars, counterinsurgency, and urban warfare, but a younger cadre of writers,
operators, and analysts is emerging who insist that we are indeed in the midst of a Revolution in
Military Affairs, only one that centers on robots, unmanned vehicles, and artificial intelligence.
They claim that unmanned systems and robots are changing the calculus of war, and will allow
the United States to threaten military intervention and the use of force without substantial risk to
ourselves. Peter Singer of the Brookings Institution speaks of a “robotics revolution” and claims
that “…At their fundamental level, all the past RMAs in history were about changing how wars
were fought….By contrast, the introduction of unmanned systems to the battlefield doesn’t
change simply how we fight, but for the first time changes who fights at the most fundamental
level.”
i
In Wired for War, excerpts of which were published in Joint Force Quarterly, Singer
cites a growing chorus of analysts and operators who believe that robots play to America’s
strength, and will enable the United States military to exert relentless, terrifying pressure on its
enemies. These enthusiasts contend that robotic and unmanned systems will reduce casualties,
and free soldiers, sailors, and airmen from performing dull, dirty, or dangerous tasks.
Addressing the broader American public, the technology columnist of the Washington Times
explains that “Robotic weapons are expendable… With an unmanned plane, if it doesn’t come
back, you just order another one. This will be especially true of remotely controlled ‘soldiers’
consisting perhaps of the equivalent of a riding lawn mower, a video camera, and a rocket
launcher or gun. You could send one into the most dangerous street in Iraq with no concern for
its safety.”
ii
Few analysts dispute that robots and unmanned aerial and ground systems have already proven
very useful at the tactical level, performing the dangerous jobs of IED disposal, minesweeping,
and tactical reconnaissance; the dirty tasks of chemical and radiation detection; and the dull
duties of aerial reconnaissance, surveillance and presence. Unmanned aerial vehicles such as the
Reaper and Predator have rendered valuable support to ground troops engaged in urban combat,
and are threatening to displace manned aircraft as the premier providers of air to ground “kinetic
action” against insurgents and terrorists.
iii
Their growing effectiveness at the tactical level has
led some to conclude that these systems will have a dramatic impact at the strategic level of war
in the medium term future, as unmanned systems and robots become increasingly sophisticated
and mainstream. The most enthusiastic visionaries proclaim that in the not so distant future, the
