A beluga whale suspected of spying for the Russian Navy has made headlines around the world. The whale appeared in Norwegian national waters and approached a fishing vessel where the sailors discovered a camera which later appeared to be Russian Navy espionage equipment. This purported criminal activity serves as a reminder that many marine mammals are enlisted in militaries worldwide to serve in a variety of roles.
The South Asia Initiative at UC San Diego hosts a series of interdisciplinary events to promote discussion and exchange on South Asia. On Thursday February 14th, they invited Reetika Khera, associate professor of economics at the Indian Institute of Management, along with UC San Diego’s own Karthik Muralidharan, Tata Chancellor’s professor of economics, to discuss and debate India’s new “Aadhaar” system.
“Aadhaar”–meaning “foundation” in Hindi–represents the Indian government’s attempt to usher in as many of its citizens into the digital age as possible through the use of biometric IDs (fingerprints, retina scans, etc.) to connect various social services to a citizen’s own genetic imprint. First proposed in 2009, citizens were initially not required to obtain an Aadhaar identification. However, after a continuous push from the government and by linking it to numerous services such as bank accounts, pensions, and even free school-meals, over 1.1 billion people have now been registered, making this one of the most ambitious government data collection programs in the world. To advocates of Aadhaar, the new system is hailed as a step towards modernizing India, formalizing the economy, and leaping over illiteracy constraints of many indian citizens in need of welfare. To skeptics, it may be viewed as a huge breach of privacy. On top of these concerns for privacy, arguments against it point towards numerous implementation challenges. Professor Khera voiced some of these concerns, while professor Muralidharan–who played a key role in the early trial runs of Aadhaar–took a more cautiously optimistic stance during their discussion.
In her initial statement, Professor Khera acknowledges the common criticism of privacy issues, but focuses instead mainly on its implementation. She reasons that if Aadhaar is not able to serve its advertised purpose or audience, this massive change is being pushed for naught. First, it fails to prevent economic leakage properly, and thus does not serve its most in-need constituency. Examples she mentions include quantity fraud, wherein a citizen on welfare–who signs off on purchasing subsidized goods such as groceries–likely do not receive the full amount of goods they purchased. This issue is particularly prominent for rural and disempowered populations such as village women, and Aadhaar does nothing to combat it. Additionally, she mentions Aadhaar’s technical failures and the consequences of these failings. Many manual laborers and senior citizens have had their fingerprints faded away over time, and even a simple issue such as this has prevented many in poverty from receiving their welfare rations. Thus, based on where Aadhaar and its capabilities currently stand and the lack of socially appropriate technologies to fix these issues, Khera reasons that the system is doing more harm than good.
Professor Muralidharan did agree with many of Khera’s proposed flaws but aimed to provide more context and empirical evidence in various sectors for a more holistic view of Aadhaar’s impact. He does so by going deeper into specific regions of India where Aadhaar was implemented and then measuring how effective specific programs were in each region. The adoption of a more basic biometric smartcard system in the state of Andhra Pradesh resulted in a much more efficient and less corrupted payment experience, which was publicly very popular without needing additional government expenditure. Conversely, once economic leakage was reduced in a lower-capacity state like Jharkhand, so too was government spending reduced, demonstrating policies that prioritize fiscal savings over welfare. The sheer scale coupled with the variety of situations in each state present a massive challenge in implementation. This contrast demonstrates the failures in implementation, rather than the system itself. Muralidharan concludes that rejecting the technology itself would be counterproductive. Instead, he highlights the importance of democratic vigilance grassroots measurements to address cases like these, where vulnerable groups are not receiving the protections they need.
Both Khera and Muralidharan spoke from positions of deep investment in India, and understood the reality of such a large nation with scarce resources, and trying to distribute them as judiciously as possible. When asked what he thought the audience’s major takeaways from the discussion should be, Muralidharan again reflected on the role of advocacy in policy making. “The activists are able to see the groundlevel realities that politicians and academia are divorced from,” though he admits, “I do trust activists with diagnosis, but not with solutions.” He believes real long term solutions require valuable data points reflected in sensitive policy processes, echoing a sentiment that the only way to achieve these long term reforms for the public is an organized effort from the grassroots advocates, dedicated researchers, and centralized policy makers.
Ordinary human soldiers simply do not cut it anymore. At least that’s the impression given by Hollywood’s obsession with “super soldiers” of superhero franchises (“Marvel” and “Justice League”) and robotic dystopian infamy (“Matrix” and “Blade Runner”). But how attainable are the abilities of mutant or enhanced humans in real life?
Research is progressing rapidly and super soldiers will certainly exist in the very near future, but not in the box office-storming form depicted by Hollywood. Firstly, there is no precisedefinition of a “super soldier” beyond the characterization of an individual whose capabilities exceed existing human aptitude. Secondly, current super soldier development–at least, what is known to the public–is much subtler and, regrettably, less sexy than media portrayals suggest. Scientists face constricting realities that their fictional counterparts overcome rather easily or simply fail to address. However, this hasn’t prevented a race among strategic competitors to operationalize said technology and gain military advantage.
With the publicization of advances in gene-editing technology, particularly in light of news that Chinese scientists have utilized CRISPR technology to create the world’s first genetically-modified babies, some alarmists fear that CRISPR will be applied to create genetically superior humans. Fortunately, such scientific abilities remain a ways out of reach. Additionally, there is little evidence of large-scale programs utilizing radiation or other nefarious means to grant individuals superhuman abilities through mutation. Instead, super soldier research falls under three main categories: enhancement, exosuits and augmentation.
The most common research undertaken towards creating super soldiers focuses on simple physical and cognitive performance enhancement. Scientists look to maximize soldier training and performance without drastic alterations to the human genome–similar to scientific training approaches used in professional sports to get the most out of athletes. As explored in a report by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), the U.S. military is demonstrably sleep-deprived and provided with insufficient nutrients. Resulting lapsesin cognitive performance (reactionary sharpness and decision-making ability in moments of intense stress) and physical performance (exhaustion and capacity to carry their heavy body armor) impair combat effectiveness. To supplement the selection of stimulants already widely distributed by American military branches as mentioned by the CNAS report, researchers are experimenting with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, which helps neurons conveying brain signals faster. Soldiers will be able to react more quickly and maintain their focus for longer, which has the potential to drastically increase troop survivability rate.
Exosuits and Exoskeletons
Another branch of super soldier technology focuses on enhancing troop capabilities through wearable suits or exoskeletons, which are removable and do not alter the abilities of the users themselves. Both Russia and the United States have created competing prototypes of Hollywood-like exosuits with advanced armaments and combat capabilities, but they are immensely heavy and require extreme amounts of power to operate. With battery lives lasting no more than a few hours at present and weight beyond what soldiers can carry, their combat effectiveness is extremely limited.
Far from armored weapons systems designed to turn users into human arsenals à la Marvel’s “Iron Man” or Tom Cruise’s mech suit in “Edge of Tomorrow,” the modern generation of exoskeletons are designed primarily to increase soldier endurance and survivability rates through mobility. According to another CNAS report, “Exoskeletons with more modest goals, such as lower-body exoskeletons that are designed simply to increase mobility, reduce energy expenditure and reduce musculoskeletal injuries, may show more promise in the near-term.” These “soft skeleton” exosuits are light and require little power to operate. Fitted on top or even under a soldier’s uniform, they aid mobility by assisting leg joints without hindering natural movement, using biomechanics and even artificial intelligence to synch with a soldier’s unique gait. Several defense labs and companies, including Lockheed Martin and the Wyss Institute at Harvard University, are currently under contract to develop soft exosuits for the U.S. government.
A third method of infusing humans with superhuman abilities is “augmentation,” perhaps the most questionable and sinister-seeming field of application. While it seeks to push the limits of human capability similarly to physical and cognitive enhancements, augmentation differs because its effects on humans are potentially permanent. Because of the strong ethical and strategic implications, government research into augmentation is likely to be secretive, blurring the line between rumor and reality.
In attempting to imbue soldiers with traits unattainable to humans, scientists turn to the animal world rather than science-fiction. Unclassified research fromU.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) includes experiments on an anesthetic vaccine to reduce pain sensitivity completely at the site of a wound and studies on marine mammals like dolphins and whales, who never fully sleep, to understand how to reduce human sleep dependency. Instead, one side of a whale’s brain sleeps at a time, with the other carrying out basic functions such as allowing the whale to surface for air. Labs have also attempted to replicate a goose’s ability to fly 5 days without eating through hemoglobin adjustment and a sea lion’s control over its blood flow to prevent altitude sickness when changing depths.
Global “Super Soldier” Competition
The major contenders for strategic supremacy in terms of super soldier development are the United States, China and Russia. While they attempt to publicly one-up each other throughflashyexhibitions of exoskeleton progression, the real competition likely occurs in secret labs as researchers advance projects classified for both their strategic importance and ethical ambiguity. The U.S. government’s accountability to its citizens and relative transparency is a great disadvantage in this area. Among the major powers, the United States has the largest accumulation of scientific and military innovation ability; Russia doesn’t have the volume or quality of research institutions to match the United States as it once did and China still lags in terms of original military innovation. Yet, Russia and China benefit from less institutional restrictions on boundary-pushing experimentation. Far less information on super soldier development is made publicly available by the Russians or Chinese. Military competition places the United States in a tough spot from a game theory perspective: if they suspect that rivals will pursue domination in “super soldier” development through unethical means and high levels of spending, can the United States afford not todo the same? In true “arms race” fashion, competition ratchets up as each actor perceives the same uncertainty, logically opting to accelerate super soldier research.
Even in an era where military calculus appears dominated by precision drone strikes, cyber warfare and nuclear detente, individual soldiers remain indispensable. Unmanned, long-distance warfighting has enabled humans to bring about World War III in a matter of minutes; ground troops provide a more measured, less-escalatory solution to armed conflicts. For this reason, militaries will continue to maximize the abilities of their soldiers through modern technological means. Yet–as research has demonstrated–creating super soldiers requires far more than a secret serum or quick blast of radiation. Movie buffs rejoice; the defense industry won’t be putting action flicks out of business just yet.