AI Killing in the Name of Past and Future. Identifying Counterfactual and Hypothetical Narratives Justifying the Decision to Deploy Data-Based Military Technology by the US Military

Table of Contents

1. Introduction:

1.1 Structure

1.2 Scope

2. Practices of decision making

3. Historic Context

4. Terminology

5. 1st Counterfactual: fewer civilian casualties

5.1 Reinvention of accuracy

5.2 Dual Use

5.3 System Destruction Warfare

6. 2nd Counterfactual: Safeguard and policy

6.1 International Ban problems

6.2 Human Meaningful Control

7. 3rd counterfactual: No defiance

7.1 Decorporealizing of state power

7.2 Air Power

8. Transition to Hypotheticals

9. 1st Hypothetical: adversarial AI on the battlefield

9.1 Command and Control

9.2 Adversarial AI Development

10. 2nd Hypothetical: long-term commitment

10.1 Shortcomings

10.2 No backing out

11. Conclusion

Research Objectives & Topics

This work examines the narratives—both counterfactual and hypothetical—that justify the integration of data-based weapon systems into the US military's arsenal. By applying a cultural-scientific framework of decision-making, it analyzes how these narratives function to overcome doubts and justify technological adoption despite inherent risks and ethical concerns.

• The usage of counterfactual narratives to justify AI as a rectification of past failures in the "Global War on Terror."
• The role of "System Destruction Warfare" and "Dual Use" concepts in reshaping target identification.
• The critique of existing policy safeguards, such as "Meaningful Human Control," as epistemologically narrow and biased.
• The transition to hypothetical narratives, specifically the fear of adversarial AI, as a driver for military investment.
• The examination of how autonomous weapon systems might minimize human agency and potential soldier defiance.

Excerpt from the Book

Chapter Summaries

1. Introduction: Outlines the scope of the thesis, focusing on how counterfactual and hypothetical narratives shape the discourse and justification for deploying data-based military technologies.

2. Practices of decision making: Establishes a theoretical framework for analyzing decision-making as a cultural and social process, emphasizing how narratives are used to manage contingency and doubt.

3. Historic Context: Briefly examines the historical conditions, particularly the "Global War on Terror," that necessitated the shift toward data-driven intelligence and drone warfare.

4. Terminology: Addresses the definitional challenges surrounding "Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems" (LAWS) and justifies the use of the term "data-based military technology."

5. 1st Counterfactual: fewer civilian casualties: Analyzes the narrative claim that data-based systems reduce collateral damage, contrasting this with Suchman’s critique of the "Precision Shift."

6. 2nd Counterfactual: Safeguard and policy: Investigates the vague nature of policy proposals like "Meaningful Human Control" and how these reflect colonial-era attitudes toward governance.

7. 3rd counterfactual: No defiance: Explores how automated command structures aim to eliminate human agency and potential soldiers' refusal to follow orders, drawing parallels to historical "Air Power."

8. Transition to Hypotheticals: Provides a bridge between historical counterfactuals and prospective hypothetical scenarios that drive future military investments.

9. 1st Hypothetical: adversarial AI on the battlefield: Discusses the fear of being outpaced by adversarial AI and how this fear justifies sustained military investment.

10. 2nd Hypothetical: long-term commitment: Examines how initial investments create a "lock-in" effect where subsequent reliance on unproven technology becomes a strategic necessity.

11. Conclusion: Summarizes how neither counterfactual nor hypothetical narratives adequately address the deep-rooted technical and ethical challenges of autonomous military systems.

Keywords

Data-based military technology, Artificial Intelligence, decision-making, counterfactual narratives, hypothetical scenarios, US military, command and control, situational awareness, Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, Meaningful Human Control, Global War on Terror, asymmetric warfare, algorithmic warfare, colonial traditions, military ethics.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the central focus of this bachelor's thesis?

This work investigates the narratives used by the US military to justify the deployment of data-based technologies and artificial intelligence in modern warfare.

What are the primary thematic fields covered in this study?

The work explores military decision-making, the history of drone warfare, ethical implications of automation, the influence of colonial power dynamics, and the geopolitical pressures behind AI investment.

What is the primary research objective?

The goal is to analyze how counterfactual and hypothetical narratives function as sense-making mechanisms to legitimize technological military expansion despite existing criticism and significant technical shortcomings.

Which scientific methodology is applied?

The author utilizes a cultural-scientific analysis of decision-making, focusing on decisions as social processes rather than outcomes, while incorporating qualitative criticism from sociological and historical perspectives.

What topics are discussed within the main body of the text?

The main body examines three main counterfactuals (precision, policy safeguards, and defiance) and two hypothetical scenarios (adversarial AI threat and long-term investment commitments) to assess the "procedural rationality" of these military choices.

Which keywords define this academic work?

Key terms include data-based military technology, Artificial Intelligence, decision-contingency, algorithmic warfare, colonialist traditions, and OODA loop strategy.

How does the author interpret the role of "Meaningful Human Control"?

The author argues that "Meaningful Human Control" is an epistemologically narrow and vague policy concept that fails to address the power dynamics between the "controller" and the "controlled," effectively excluding the perspectives of those most vulnerable to these weapons.

What is the significance of the "OODA loop" in this study?

The OODA loop serves as the standardized command procedure for kinetic engagement; the author analyzes how data-based technology is intended to accelerate this loop, often at the risk of human error and ethical failure.

What implications does the thesis suggest for the future of warfare?

The study suggests that the shift toward autonomous and data-driven systems creates a "tense and volatile" environment where AI-driven deterrence could potentially lead to unforeseen arms races and the further erosion of the "civilian" as a protected concept.