In the past decade, unmanned systems (UxS) have more than proven their combat effectiveness. They have cemented their presence on the battlefield. Now, as the associated article here points out, unmanned systems must prove themselves to be cost effective. But there is a third achievement that UxS will need as they mature and integrate with existing systems; unmanned systems will have to find their true names.
It is a common trait of emerging technology that it begins with names that describe what it is not rather than describing what it is. Virtually every life-altering technology has experienced this shift. Early automobiles were called “horseless carriages.” Early radios were called “wireless sets.”
We can see this same pattern with unmanned systems. The vocabulary that has emerged around UxS struggles to describe what this revolutionary technology really is. The two words that typify this situation are the adjectives most frequently applied: unmanned and autonomous.
Clearly, calling an unmanned system unmanned is a misnomer. Even in their most idealized state, UxS have significant human controls. No naval captain will ever stand on the bridge of his ship and say, “I wonder why those UAVs just launched?” Human judgment will always play a central role in the application of lethal force. It is not unrealistic to expect that UxS will enhance our ability to use force in a more discriminatory and proportional manner.
In a similar way, calling a system autonomous fails to express what really makes it different from other systems. Unfortunately, the range of technologies that might be implied by the word autonomous is virtually all-encompassing. Many efforts have been made to define autonomy, but often those definitions are merely tailored to the developmental milestones of the system to which they are applied.
Further, both “unmanned” and “autonomous” act as barriers to the discussion of UxS. Pilots naturally resist the implication that unmanned systems do not need the specialized skills of professional aviators. “Autonomy” is a double-edged source of confusion and resistance. Use of the word conjures images of rogue machines turned against humanity for the Luddites at the same time it overpromises to the Early Adopters.
The sheer breadth of UxS technology suggests that it may be a long time before effective collective terms develop. It would be vain to suggest what terms we should be using; however, when we finally begin to use the true name of UxS, technology will leap ahead because the change in vocabulary will signal the end of resistance.
In the meantime, we need to do two things. First, we have to recognize that our current vocabulary is inadequate for the real potential of UxS. While it is sufficient for well-informed professionals to have technical discussions, it falls short of what is needed for the general population. Second, we should not be concerned when the taxpayers give UxS a name of their own choosing. Rather than viewing this as a misunderstanding that needs to be corrected, we should recognize it as an acceptance of this important technology into American life.