The Pentagon is Nervous about Russian and Chinese Killer Robots

The Armata T-14 at Victory Day, Moscow, 2015.

Flickr image via Dmitriy Fomin

AA Font size + Print

The Armata T-14 at Victory Day, Moscow, 2015.

Deputy defense secretary: Russia is preparing for all-robot fighting units.

The Pentagon is rushing to keep up with Russian and Chinese efforts to develop highly autonomous robots — in Russia’s case, ones capable of independently carrying out military operations, deputy defense secretary Robert Work told a Center for New American Security national security forum today.

Work quoted the Defense Science Board’s summer study on autonomy and AI, which said that the human race stands at “an inflection point” in the development of artificial intelligence. Different nations, he noted, are reacting in very different ways.

“We know that China is already investing heavily in robotics and autonomy and the Russian Chief of General Staff [Valery Vasilevich] Gerasimov recently said that the Russian military is preparing to fight on a roboticized battlefield and he said, and I quote, ‘In the near future, it is possible that a complete roboticized unit will be created capable of independently conducting military operations.’”

What does an adversary robot military look like? Perhaps like some future version of the Armata T-14 from Russian defense contractor Uralvagonzavod. In October, the company’s deputy director general, Vyacheslav Khalitov, told Russian media, “We will be able to show prototypes in 1.5 to 2 years. We are gradually moving away from crewed machines.”

But who needs a tank without people? Why not just little trucks with guns? In March 2014, the Russian Strategic Missile Forces announced it would deploy armed sentry robots that could select and destroy targets with no human in or on the loop at five missile installations.

Or tomorrow’s robot enemy army could look like one of these armed ground robots from China’s Harbin Institute of Technology, unveiled at the Beijing 2015 World Robot Conference. The robots can wield anti-tank weapons, grenade launchers, or assault rifles.

Work spoke broadly of the U.S. military need to “dominate” in machine learning and artificial intelligence. It’s a key feature of the so-called offset strategy, a Pentagon research initiative meant to secure technological advantage over adversaries (‘offsetting’ similar gains by those nations.) But, said Work, that the way the United States goes about designing and especially employing AI is distinct and more human reliant than Russia or China.

“I will make a hypothesis: that authoritarian regimes who believe people are weaknesses … that they can not be trusted, they will naturally gravitate toward totally automated solutions. Why do I know that? Because that is exactly the way the Soviets conceived of their reconnaissance strike complex. It was going to be completely automated. We believe that the advantage we have as we start this competition is our people,” he said.

Work’s hypothesis echoes, somewhat, the concerns of Gill Pratt, a former roboticist with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, who expressed concerns about endowing ground robots with the autonomous, lethal capabilities in a conversation with Defense One during the summer.

Pratt said that humans would be better than machines, for some years to come, at deciding whether to fire a weapon. “The chance of making a military situation much worse by having a machine autonomously make a mistake outweighs the benefit,” he said.

Close [ x ] More from DefenseOne

Thank you for subscribing to newsletters from
We think these reports might interest you:

  • Software-Defined Networking

    So many demands are being placed on federal information technology networks, which must handle vast amounts of data, accommodate voice and video, and cope with a multitude of highly connected devices while keeping government information secure from cyber threats. This issue brief discusses the state of SDN in the federal government and the path forward.

  • Military Readiness: Ensuring Readiness with Analytic Insight

    To determine military readiness, decision makers in defense organizations must develop an understanding of complex inter-relationships among readiness variables. For example, how will an anticipated change in a readiness input really impact readiness at the unit level and, equally important, how will it impact readiness outside of the unit? Learn how to form a more sophisticated and accurate understanding of readiness and make decisions in a timely and cost-effective manner.

  • Cyber Risk Report: Cybercrime Trends from 2016

    In our first half 2016 cyber trends report, SurfWatch Labs threat intelligence analysts noted one key theme – the interconnected nature of cybercrime – and the second half of the year saw organizations continuing to struggle with that reality. The number of potential cyber threats, the pool of already compromised information, and the ease of finding increasingly sophisticated cybercriminal tools continued to snowball throughout the year.

  • A New Security Architecture for Federal Networks

    Federal government networks are under constant attack, and the number of those attacks is increasing. This issue brief discusses today's threats and a new model for the future.

  • Information Operations: Retaking the High Ground

    Today's threats are fluent in rapidly evolving areas of the Internet, especially social media. Learn how military organizations can secure an advantage in this developing arena.


When you download a report, your information may be shared with the underwriters of that document.