With few exceptions, most soldiers do not wish for death on the battlefield.
While some warrior cultures, like the Norse, revered dying in battle as an honourable end, and some jihadists today believe in heavenly rewards for martyrs, these are outliers. The reality is that the prospect of being shot or blown to pieces is terrifying, making recruitment a persistent challenge.
A recent BBC article highlighted the increasing difficulty of recruiting new soldiers in Ukraine. After two-and-a-half years of war and more than 500,000 Russian and Ukrainian casualties, volunteers are scarce.
Consequently, Ukraine introduced a law requiring all men aged 25 to 60 to register their details in an electronic database for potential conscription. Conscription officers actively seek those avoiding registration, driving many into hiding.
In Odesa, the feared mobilization squads are known for pulling people off buses and from train stations, taking them directly to enlistment centres. These reluctant recruits understandably fear becoming another statistic in the front line “meat grinder” with Russia.
Throughout history, rulers and politicians have faced the challenge of convincing ordinary citizens to enlist for war. How do leaders persuade their populace to take up arms and risk their lives? As societies have become better educated and informed, these tactics have evolved. Leaders often appeal to extreme nationalism, dehumanize the enemy, and create an atmosphere of existential threats, false flags, and outright lies.
Consider Putin’s “Denazification” of Ukraine, Israel’s claims of decapitated babies, and America’s claim of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Not to mention the excuse of needing to protect citizens through regime change, as seen in Libya. The truth usually emerges, but often long after the damage is done.
Notable examples include the Pentagon Papers scandal in 1971, which revealed significant information about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, showing that the U.S. government had misrepresented the events that led to the escalation of the Vietnam War, and the unfounded WMD claims that led to the invasion of Iraq.
Convincing the populace is one thing, but recruiting soldiers requires a deeper indoctrination. Training recruits to follow orders without question involves repetitive military drills. These drills condition recruits to respond to commands promptly and without hesitation. As a soldier, you’re not expected to judge the morality of your actions; you execute orders precisely as given. If this indoctrination fails, there is always the threat of court-martial, imprisonment, or even facing a firing squad.
That said, given the effort required to craft narratives, fear-mongering, lies, and indoctrination necessary to mobilize the populace for war, wouldn’t it be simpler to eliminate the need for citizens’ permission or soldiers altogether? Recent technological advances might offer warmongers a solution.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) will revolutionize weaponry like no previous innovation in history. A recent report by the Quincy Institute, which I support, highlights Silicon Valley’s entry into the weapons industry. It quotes former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, “Every once in a while, a new weapon, a new technology comes along that changes things. Einstein wrote a letter to Roosevelt in the 1930s saying that there is this new technology — nuclear weapons — that could change war, which it clearly did. I would argue that (AI-powered) autonomy and decentralized, distributed systems are that powerful.”
AI can achieve what humans cannot, parsing millions of inputs, identify patterns, and alerting commanders at unimaginable speeds. Military experts assert that the side that most effectively shortens the “kill chain” — the time between identifying and destroying a target — wins.
AI may be the most revolutionary technology for conducting war, but it’s not alone. Kamikaze drones, now used in the Ukraine war, will one day swarm battlefields. Additionally, many other sci-fi-esque technologies, like Direct Energy Weapons (DEW), including high-power microwaves, particle beam weapons, and lasers are being tested by the U.S., the U.K., Israel, and Russia.
Mimicking “Terminators” is not far off either. Witness the advancements by companies like Boston Dynamics. Their humanlike robots can run, jump, and move much like humans. Equipping them with machine guns or flame-throwers and mass-producing a few hundred thousand of them is a scary thought. (Boston Dynamics reached out to the Star following publication to note that it does not support the weaponization of robots).
The future of war will also encompass fifth-generation warfare, primarily conducted through nonkinetic military actions like social engineering, misinformation, and cyberattacks. When paired with AI and fully autonomous systems, these methods can be as damaging as kinetic warfare. Consider the movie “Leave the World Behind,” which explores societal collapse when all communication networks are shut down by a cyberattack.
Adding AI to any of these weapons creates autonomous systems capable of making decisions without human intervention, leaving the decision to kill to an algorithm. Given that we still don’t fully understand how AI learns and arrives at conclusions, the risks of catastrophic malfunctions should not be underestimated.
AI lacks a moral compass; it simply aims to complete its task. As author and AI expert Max Tegmark explains, “a machine does not need to be malevolent; it simply needs to be competent at achieving its goals to be a potential threat.” If innocent humans are in the way of completing its task, tough luck.
What are the implications of these advancements for decisions about wars? It’s hard to predict, but one outcome might be that with less need to recruit soldiers, there’s less need to “sell” the public on engaging in war. In the U.S., the “Military Industrial Complex” has already managed to bypass Congress (contravening the U.S. Constitution) when deciding to go to war, giving the president tremendous power.
Relegating soldiers to museums alongside crossbows and muskets, would make declaring war much less controversial — no body bags on the evening news — and therefore easier to wage. The only “soldiers” needed will be the young kids sitting at computer consoles conducting destruction of lives and property like in video games. No more 18-year-olds dying somewhere in the mud. Only the innocent civilians caught in the crossfire of this new kind of warfare will pay the price.
As the U.S. has engaged in decades of wars that have destroyed lives and economies without achieving their stated goals, and have significantly contributed to the nation’s enormous debt, public attitudes — especially among Gen-Z — have become increasingly critical and less accepting of war.
As rapper Cardi B mockingly said about recent draft legislation, “I just read an article saying that the House just passed a bill that they’re going to automatically register men from 18 to 26 for war. All I want to say is to America, good luck with that. These new little n——— are TikTokkers, baby. These mother f——— ain’t going to fight no war. You might as well just keep investing money and get guns. This is a new America, baby.”
The introduction of technologies that might make soldiers obsolete may give warmongers who manipulate the decision-making process at the highest levels an easier path to wage more senseless wars. That would be a tragedy.
This article was republished with permission from the Toronto Star.
