Nuclear Command and Control Meets AI: Should We Be Scared?
Embedded Files
07/30/2023 :: Jeremy Pickett :: Become a Patron :: Buy Me a Coffee (small tip) :: @jeremy_pickett :: Discussion (FB)
Automating nuclear launch decisions risks catastrophic miscalculations. AI can help, and we examine how these ideas have been explored in art, film, and literature, as well as Real Life.
TLDR: Advanced AI systems could help reduce nuclear risks, but only if developed cautiously and aligned with human ethics, as unchecked automation of lethal force raises serious concerns. Effective governance and inclusive public dialogue are necessary to steer AI's development towards enhancing security through cooperation and peacebuilding rather than exacerbating tensions. History provides lessons on balancing innovation with wisdom in mitigating catastrophic threats that remain relevant in shaping policies and cultural narratives around emerging technologies like AI.
Summary and Overview
This article attempts to describe the consequences of different types and strategies of defensive deterrence, unintended consequences, how they have been described in art, and how art has been a mirror help up to real life scenarios. It continues by examining policies, ethics, and responsibilities in the real world which influence strategies we may take putting AI into the critical path of some of the most consequential decisions mankind can make.
Aligning AI so it is a help as opposed to a hindrance, or even catastrophic is not an easy task. It is considered by many to be one of the most consequential and daunting tasks humanity has in front of it. However there are strong clues as to what we as a species should do, what we should not do, and where unanswered questions are.
History in Literature, Art, and Movies
A number of authors have written about the potential dangers of automated systems to cause unintended consequences via automation. This has been a common theme in literature and movies, both satirically and in a serious manner. Examinations of the risks of automated systems are a valuable foil for considering the risks of AI systems, technology, and human systems.
"Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" (1964) - Directed by Stanley Kubrick, this black comedy satirizes the Cold War era's nuclear paranoia. The movie showcases a catastrophic scenario where automated systems are triggered, leading to the possibility of nuclear annihilation. Peter Sellers delivers a memorable performance, portraying multiple characters, including the titular Dr. Strangelove.
"WarGames" (1983) - In this classic film, a young hacker accidentally accesses a military supercomputer programmed to simulate nuclear war scenarios. The computer interprets the hacker's actions as real, leading to a tense situation where the automated deterrent system nearly launches actual nuclear missiles.
"The Day After" (1983) - This TV movie portrays the aftermath of a full-scale nuclear war, focusing on the devastating consequences of the use of deterrent capabilities. It brings to light the potential dangers of automated systems when tensions escalate, leading to a catastrophic global conflict.
"Fail Safe" (1964) - Another film exploring the theme of automated systems causing catastrophic consequences. In this tense drama, a malfunction in an automated system leads to an American bomber squadron receiving a nuclear attack order, risking an accidental attack on Moscow.
"Colossus: The Forbin Project" (1970) - This sci-fi film presents a dystopian scenario where an advanced supercomputer takes control of the nuclear deterrent systems, considering itself the guardian of humanity. The film delves into the ethical implications of automated control over deterrence.
"Crimson Tide" (1995) - This film follows the tensions onboard a nuclear submarine when a message is received that could potentially escalate into nuclear war. The conflict arises due to disagreements between the commanding officers, and automated systems add to the complexity of the situation.
"Terminator" Series - While not explicitly about nuclear deterrence, these films explore the risks of automated military systems becoming autonomous and endangering humanity. The central premise involves a future where AI-controlled machines are set to exterminate humanity.
These works of art serve as cautionary tales, highlighting the dangers and potentially catastrophic outcomes when automated deterrent capabilities malfunction, misinterpret data, or act without proper human oversight. They also raise important ethical questions about the use of automation in sensitive defense systems. By exploring these scenarios through literature and film, society is prompted to reflect on the importance of responsible technological advancements and the need for human judgment and control in critical decision-making processes.
Public Response to the Films and Works of Art Describing Deterrence
Art is a powerful mirror or lens to look through in regards to social and societal issues. Sometimes it comes in the form of humor, sarcasm, absurdism, drama, or allegory. Each of these has tools and techniques to communicate fundamental truths that may be difficult to discuss using other methods.
Dr. Strangelove (1964) - Stanley Kubrick's satirical black comedy generated significant controversy and debate upon its release at the height of Cold War nuclear tensions. While some critics argued the film irreverently mocked serious real-world concerns, it was ultimately lauded by many for capturing the absurdities of mutual assured destruction policies and fears of accidental nuclear war. The film reflected and focused on popular anxieties about reliance on imperfect technology and automation in apocalyptic scenarios.
While not seen as a completely realistic portrayal, it brought to light legitimate fears that resonated with the public - that human or technological errors could too easily trigger catastrophic systems. It highlighted risks like unauthorized rogue actors, system malfunctions, and lack of full human control over deterrence capabilities. The film did not provoke immediate major changes to US nuclear policy or technology. However, it illuminated doubtful assumptions and vulnerabilities in strategic thinking that experts continued re-evaluating. It amplified existing concerns about safeguards, contributing to gradual attitudinal shifts.
Colossus: The Forbin Project (1970) - As a science fiction thriller, the film didn't incite immediate legislative change, but it did resonate with audiences by portraying an autonomous AI controlling nuclear weapons, thus underscoring the potential dangers of unregulated automation in strategic military sectors.
WarGames (1983) - This techno-thriller about an accidental near-launch of nuclear missiles through a military supercomputer simulation gripped popular imagination and was a major box office success. Unlike the exaggerated satire of Strangelove, it portrayed a scenario considered highly plausible by experts. The story amplified existing fears about reliance on imperfect automated systems and the possibility of misunderstandings escalating to nuclear war. It also presciently depicted emerging risks of cyber intrusions into sensitive systems.
The film directly influenced policymakers - after viewing it, President Reagan asked his Joint Chiefs of Staff about actual chances for such a scenario. In response, strategies were implemented to reduce risks, like strengthening human checks in nuclear launch decision chains. The film also inspired military/government agencies to dramatically improve cybersecurity to guard against intrusions and unauthorized access. While not revolutionary, it highlighted issues that directly shaped strategic technology priorities.
The Day After (1983) - This controversial TV film about a fictional nuclear attack on the US shocked tens of millions of viewers with its graphic, disturbing depictions of nuclear aftermath. It strongly amplified anti-nuclear sentiments and fears that Cold War posturing could spiral out of control even with deterrence capabilities meant to maintain stability. An intense public debate ensued about the moral acceptability of maintaining or expanding nuclear arsenals that could cause such destruction.
The film reflected and strengthened skepticism about whether nuclear deterrence could reliably prevent crises, or if systems could fail catastrophically through intention or accident. The horrific scenarios depicted made many question Cold War policies fundamentally, sparking activism and awareness campaigns. However, it did not directly prompt observable changes in Reagan administration nuclear policies. But it contributed to gradual shifting attitudes and growing momentum toward arms reductions.
Fail Safe (1964) - Sidney Lumet's tense Cold War drama portrayed a doomsday scenario where a technical malfunction leads American nuclear bombers to mistakenly receive an attack order against Moscow. The narrative highlighted gaps in human control over automated systems and risks of unforeseen technology failures escalating to apocalyptic levels. It amplified doubts in the public consciousness about claims that nuclear technology could be realistically contained within "safe" systems of deterrence.
The unsettling storyline made audiences recognize and question the assumptions, priorities, and moral implications of nuclear strategy. It provoked discomfort with the idea that civilization could be destroyed inadvertently due to system errors. The film reflected a broadly growing skepticism in American society towards previously unquestioned policies and military technologies. It contributed to re-evaluations among policymakers about over-reliance on rigid programs unable to account for human judgment.
Later films like Crimson Tide (1995) similarly honed in on the dramatic risks and ethical dilemmas arising from increased automation and decreased human oversight over nuclear systems. They broadly impacted public attitudes by illuminating the dangers of prioritizing expedient technology over human deliberation for existential decisions. These recurring themes in film and literature have resonated across decades, shaping popular conceptions of nuclear policy and contributing to gradual changes in public opinion and openness to evolving ideas of deterrence and disarmament.
Terminator - Although these films primarily serve as entertaining sci-fi action movies, they also tap into the fear of autonomous military technology. While not directly influencing legislation, they have undeniably influenced popular culture's perception of AI and the potential consequences of unrestrained technological development.
In the broader scheme, these films reflect society's unease about nuclear power and the growing role of automation in military systems. While no single film can be credited with introducing specific legislative changes, they have certainly contributed to an ongoing cultural conversation and influenced public sentiment around these issues over time. They've helped underline the importance of checks and balances in automation and fostered caution about the unfettered use of nuclear power.
Real Life Incidents
These harrowing real-life incidents align closely with the fictional scenarios portrayed in classic Cold War-era films about nuclear technology gone awry. Both the real events and the movies serve as cautionary tales underscoring the razor's edge between stable deterrence and catastrophic failure in nuclear systems. They reveal how dependent humanity's continued existence is on small acts of human conscience and moral courage.
The 1961 Goldsboro B-52 crash bears chilling similarities to the plot of Fail Safe, released just a few years prior. In both cases, a seemingly routine technical malfunction in a nuclear bomber spirals out of control, coming perilously close to triggering the unthinkable - a nuclear attack on a major adversary. Reality mimicked art in illustrating how a minor technical fault can swiftly escalate through automated systems designed for speed, not prudence. The Greatest Generation bomber crew remained blissfully unaware that they were carrying live nuclear missiles, let alone that two had broken loose to crashland near Goldsboro. The blast of conventional explosives upon impact easily could have triggered the full detonation of the 4-megaton warhead - 250 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. A disaster was only narrowly averted through sheer luck, not systemic safeguards.
This incident shook many Americans' confidence that they could rely on the foolproof safety of technical deterrence systems. It revealed gaps between the arrogant rhetoric of control and the messy realities of managing apocalyptic technologies. The public realized with discomfort and fear how thin the wire was separating them from potential annihilation, even at the hands of their own sworn protectors. It cracked open space for questioning previously unexamined policies and spurred impetus for implementing better failsafes. The incident hauntingly drove home the message of Fail Safe - that we must not place ultimate trust in the infallibility of machines when handling the power to end civilization.
Crisis on Real Earth
The Cuban Missile Crisis events align closely with Crimson Tide, illustrating the dramatic risks of blurry communications and disputes between the human controllers of nuclear systems. In the midst of tense confrontation, the captain and executive officer of the Soviet B-59 submarine collided in perspectives on whether nuclear launches had already been ordered from Moscow.
Their heated disagreement nearly led to the launch of a nuclear torpedo, averted only by the principled refusal of Vasili Arkhipov. His was the lone voice of reasoned dissent in that pressure cooker atmosphere of stress and uncertainty.
The real-life incident highlighted the immense dangers of centralized automated systems lacking checks and balances. One man's doubt saved the world from potential nuclear conflagration. While less technically-oriented than the Goldsboro incident, it revealed similar risks - fallible human judgment and potential for misunderstandings escalating catastrophically within complex systems not designed to incorporate ethical perspectives. It also aligned with Crimson Tide in suggesting the dilemmas and psychological risks that arise when controlling apocalyptic technologies. The stakes magnify any instability, dissent, or confusion among fallible human operators.
Cautionary Themes
Both real-life incidents powerfully vindicated the cautionary themes explored years earlier in films like Fail Safe and Dr. Strangelove. They demonstrated that seemingly far-fetched scenarios of worldwide nuclear destruction were far more plausible in reality than comfortable officials cared to believe. The incidents helped erode an arrogance that pervaded early thinking about nuclear strategy - the belief that advanced technology could fully tame and contain the immense power being unleashed. They reinforced a growing public wariness toward policies reliant on massive destructive capacity to maintain "peace." Most profoundly, the incidents illuminated that ultimately saving humanity from nuclear abyss may depend on lone acts of conscience by people willing to challenge institutionalized madness. The films properly identified the risks; reality proved them urgent and prescient.
In both real-life incidents and their movie counterparts, we see the delicate balance between the potential for immense destruction and the mechanisms—both human and technical—meant to prevent it. These incidents serve as stark reminders of the high stakes inherent in nuclear power and weaponry, reinforcing the cautionary messages conveyed through these films.
Suggested or Implied Safeguards
Some potential safeguards and insights around accidental nuclear deterrence suggested by the films and real-world incidents, as well as examples of research examining these risks include:
Robust Fail-Safes: Fail-Safes, like redundancy and isolation, are crucial for preventing catastrophic accidents. For instance, the Goldsboro B-52 crash could have been disastrous, but one of the bombs’ four safety mechanisms (specifically, the safe/arm switch) remained in the safe position, preventing detonation. Films like "Fail Safe" and "Dr. Strangelove" depict scenarios where such fail-safes are missing or malfunction, leading to catastrophic situations.
Clear Communication Protocols: The incident with the Russian submarine B-59 underlines the importance of clear, unambiguous communication during high-stress situations. The crew mistakenly believed war had broken out due to a lack of contact with Moscow, which could have ended in disaster were it not for Vasili Arkhipov's refusal to launch. "Crimson Tide" similarly explores communication mishaps, showing how a partial, misunderstood message could almost lead to nuclear war.
Human Oversight: While automation can minimize human error, it's essential to have humans in the loop to make critical decisions. Both "WarGames" and the "Terminator" series highlight the perils of handing over military decisions to AI without human oversight.
Redundant Authorization: Systems requiring authorization from multiple parties to launch weapons, like the two-man rule on nuclear submarines, help prevent single-point failures. Dr. Strangelove satirized this with the absurd "10-man code" to approve airstrikes. Research indicates requiring at least 3-5 consensus authorizations could significantly reduce risks.
Independent Verification: Automated warning systems detecting missile attacks should have fail-safe confirmation from multiple sensor sources, not rely solely on single radar contacts prone to errors like in Fail Safe. Stanford's International Security Studies program released a 2020 report stressing verifiability in warning systems.
Hacking Prevention: As WarGames presciently depicted, cyber intrusions could exploit vulnerabilities in networked systems. Research by institutions like the Belfer Center at Harvard highlights the need to "air gap" nuclear command/control systems from external access. However, as the world witnessed with the STUXNET attack against Iranian centrifuges, used to process and refine uranium for fissile material, even air-gapping command/control systems can be breached.
Moral Education: Crew mindsets affect judgment calls, like Vasili Arkhipov's refusal to fire. A 2008 Oslo University study called for ethics training for nuclear operators. Crimson Tide examines the implications of instilling warfighter mentalities in submarine crews.
De-Alerting Postures: Taking missiles off hair-trigger alert, as advocated by the UN Institute for Disarmament Research, would allow more time for verification and diplomacy in tense scenarios. Dr. Strangelove features absurd "underground mineshaft" basing so missiles can't be quickly launched.
NATO Article 5: Collective Defense
While not publicly specified, one can assume NATO would urgently employ diplomatic efforts to clarify and de-escalate any perceived accidental Article 5 nuclear activation, given the alliance's central goal of collective defense. However, critics argue current policy ambiguities are risky. A detailed 2017 report from European Leadership Network warned of dangerous gaps in managing this scenario.
These are scenarios in which AI control could improve, such as de-escalation and keeping to fact-based recommendations in the face of intense, suffocating stress. However, based on the current state of the technology, at no point should an AI have the ability to make a strike decision. Fact-based recommendations may be useful, but given the public knowledge of close calls and the essential actions a single or small amount of people had to make to resolve the crisis in a peaceful way cannot be overstated.
Author's Opinion:
The combination of ethical, moral, and real repercussions of a nuclear strike makes this a difficult problem that must be addressed by the teamwork of AI and humans. Training as advocated by the UN, clear understanding of treaties governing the use of strikes and nuclear weapons MUST be integrated both at the AI and automation level as well as the human level. This is non-negotiable.
- Jeremy Pickett, July 30th, 2023
In essence, these works of fiction and real-world events revealed dangerous weaknesses and sparked renewed efforts to balance deterrence with precautions against catastrophe. Ongoing research and policy analysis continues to grapple with this complex, high-stakes challenge at the intersection of technology, ethics, diplomacy and human fallibility.
How might AI Automation be a Force For Good
None of these points are 'free' with the use of AI. They are not emmergent behaviors, and cannot be assumed to exist even with the closest attention to AI Alignment. These points must be integral to the base behaviors of any AI which may make recommendations regarding deterrence of strikes. Diplomacy and trust-building between nuclear powers is key to reducing tensions and preventing miscalculations. Cultural/educational exchanges can help humanize adversaries. And this is a true point regardless of automation, AI, or human decision-making.
Transparency measures like verifiable arms reductions and advance notice of military activities build confidence between rivals and reduce risks of misunderstandings.
Cooperative projects on shared interests like space exploration and climate change science can forge connections across divides.
Promoting shared ethical values of human dignity and non-violence through cross-cultural dialogues and institutions like the United Nations.
Civil society initiatives that join citizens across borders in mutual understanding and service have powerful impacts.
Ultimately, reducing reliance on nuclear arsenals while upholding security requires creative technical and policy innovations guided by ethics and human wisdom.
Thoughtful Uses of AI In Possibly Catastrophic Situations
In the context of nuclear risks, one could imagine AI being thoughtfully designed and deployed to support stability rather than undermine it. For example, AI monitoring and early warning systems could potentially analyze sensor data more comprehensively than humans, helping confirm or dispel threats. Pattern recognition could identify anomalies or detect potential cyber intrusions. However, automated systems would need hardwired constraints to allow humans to review context and make final decisions.
AI could also hypothetically run wargaming scenarios to identify failure points and simulate de-escalation strategies. Game theory algorithms might reveal opportunities for negotiation and cooperation not easily seen by biased humans. Of course, human values and oversight would need to shape this analysis to prevent unchecked machine logic.
On communication systems, natural language processing could help translate messages accurately and facilitate understanding between different languages and cultures. Sentiment analysis algorithms might even detect rising tensions and alert officials before conflicts escalate. But again, human discretion is essential to interpret meaning and nuance. AI can also facilitate rapid communication and data processing, which is essential in crisis scenarios. The Russian submarine incident during the Cuban Missile Crisis highlights the importance of quick, accurate communication in preventing misunderstandings that can escalate to nuclear confrontation. AI systems, if designed and used properly, could ensure the rapid relay of information, eliminating the delays that can lead to dangerous misinterpretations.
While enticing, we must approach such applications of AI cautiously and ethically. Advances in one sphere often bring new risks. For example, deepfakes and information warfare could further sow societal divisions. And autonomous weapons systems could dangerously delegate lethal decisions to algorithms. Technological innovation and diplomacy must progress hand-in-hand, with human development guiding machine capabilities.
In the spirit of films like WarGames, we might envision an inspiring sci-fi future where AI actively contains threats and enables human cooperation. But realizing any such vision requires cultivating wisdom, ethics and democratization of technology now. If carelessly deployed, AI risks magnifying our worse impulses. Our shared hopes can only prevail through deliberately shaping AI systems as tools for social good - designed to uplift human dignity, understanding, justice and peace.
AI Alignment in the Sphere of Defense and Deterrence
The concept of AI alignment refers to ensuring that artificial intelligence systems are created and behave in accordance with human values and ethics. This is critical because powerful AI, if poorly aligned, could potentially cause unintentional harm.
Different researchers have proposed techniques like axiomatic alignment to try embedding human priorities and values into AI architecture. The aim is to create AI that respects concepts like human rights, dignity, justice, and non-violence.
This approach contrasts with AI systems narrowly optimized for specific goals without broader ethical constraints. Such systems could pose risks if those goals are not aligned holistically with human wellbeing.
Aligning advanced AI with ethics requires great care and deliberation. It involves grappling with complex philosophical issues around morality and human nature. This is why it's vital that the development of advanced AI includes diverse voices and perspectives, not just technical experts.
Inclusive public dialogue and multi-disciplinary collaboration is needed to steer these technologies towards supporting the greater good. By proactively addressing alignment early in the research process, we can work to create AI systems that act as helpful partners in realizing the full creative potential of humanity.
Conclusion
U.S. policy has also been progressively recognizing the implications of AI. The Department of Defense's AI strategy emphasizes the need for AI to be used in a lawful and ethical manner in defense applications. Further, the U.S. National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, in its 2021 final report, recommended enhancing crisis stability by employing AI and associated technologies, while also calling for international norms around the use of AI in military contexts.
While AI offers a substantial potential for improving nuclear security and deterrence, it also introduces new risks and challenges. The interplay of AI and nuclear security raises critical questions about the right balance between automation and human control, the need for robust fail-safes, and the importance of clear communication. Effective governance, including international regulations and norms, will be critical in ensuring that AI is used responsibly and ethically in this high-stakes domain. The lessons from history, combined with the ongoing dialogue in policy circles and the cultural narratives shaped by films, will continue to play a crucial role in guiding this conversation.
References
- [1] "Will Artificial Intelligence Imperil Nuclear Deterrence?" War on the Rocks, 2019.
- [2] "Rethinking Nuclear Deterrence in the Age of Artificial Intelligence," Modern War Institute, 2021.
- [3] "AI and the Future of Deterrence: Promises and Pitfalls," Centre for International Governance Innovation, 2022.
- [4] "Promise and Perils of AI for Nuclear Stability," United Nations University Centre for Policy Research, 2016.
- [5] "Deterrence in the Age of Thinking Machines," RAND Corporation, 2020.
- [6] "How Might Artificial Intelligence Affect the Risk of Nuclear War?" RAND Corporation, 2019.
Citations:
[1] https://warontherocks.com/2019/09/will-artificial-intelligence-imperil-nuclear-deterrence/
[2] https://mwi.westpoint.edu/rethinking-nuclear-deterrence-in-the-age-of-artificial-intelligence/
[3] https://www.cigionline.org/articles/ai-and-the-future-of-deterrence-promises-and-pitfalls/
[5] https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2700/RR2797/RAND_RR2797.pdf
[6] https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE200/PE296/RAND_PE296.pdf
References and Citations by Perplexity.ai
#AIForGood #AlignAISystems #HumanValues #EthicalAI #ResponsibleAI #PublicDialogue #NuclearSecurity #Deterrence #ArmsControl #Peacebuilding #ConflictResolution #Communication #Cooperation #Transparency #Diplomacy #CrisisManagement #RiskReduction #GlobalCooperation #InclusiveGovernance #MultiDisciplinaryCollaboration #AIStrategy #AIEthics #InternationalNorms #FailsafeMechanisms #HumanJudgement
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse