Injured soldiers to get more help, MoD says

A total of 257 UK personnel have died in Afghanistan since 2001

Wounded soldiers will get more support to help them return to duty or to make the transition to civilian life, the Ministry of Defence has announced.

Under a new scheme, the Army Recovery Capability (ARC), sick and injured soldiers will get improved support.

The head of the British army, Gen Sir David Richards, said no soldier wanting to keep serving would be "forced out".

There are currently 102,000 soldiers in the Army but there are concerns over the number of troops unfit to deploy.

'Structured programme'

Figures obtained by the Conservatives in January suggested 5,000 soldiers - 20% of the infantry - were unable to fight on the frontline because of illness, injury, lack of fitness or non-medical reasons.

ANALYSIS Jonathan Beale, BBC defence correspondent This is all about the Army trying to do its job while taking care of those no longer fit to fight. You can't wage war with sick and injured troops. It's no surprise the ranks of the wounded and sick are growing given the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that's putting pressure on frontline units. So what should the Army do with those troops now unfit for combat? It has tried to come up with a sensitive solution that will avoid the kind of headlines leading to a tabloid backlash - the kind where they'd be accused of putting heroes on the scrapheap. The support of forces' charities the Royal British Legion and Help for Heroes has been key to getting public backing. But the real test will be how soldiers feel at the end of the process.

Military experts have warned the presence of unfit troops in the ranks is stopping the Army from taking on able-bodied young recruits.

However, Gen Richards said no-one would leave unless it was right for them to do so, and that soldiers would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

He said: "I confidently expect that no soldier who thinks it is in his interests to stay will be forced out.

"It is about the doing the right thing for the people and the right thing for the Army."

The ARC will be delivered in partnership with the Royal British Legion and the charity Help for Heroes, which is contributing £20m to build and run four new recovery centres near UK Army bases.

Its founder, Bryn Parry, said it was accepted that war was brutal and people got hurt, but once hurt, people had to be given "every opportunity" to get ready for the next phase of their lives.

The first of the centres was opened as a pilot in Edinburgh in August 2009 and a second is expected to be based in Colchester, Essex, with further centres set for other garrison towns.

In all there will be 12 "personnel recovery units" across the country, offering troops therapy, welfare, training and education and employment advice.

It will either return individuals to duty or take them to a point where it is right for them to be discharged - however long that takes Kevan Jones Veterans minister Soldiers' stories of hospital care

The structured programme will aim to get soldiers fit to return to a military post or prepare them for life outside the armed forces.

Veterans will be offered a tailored recovery plan at the units, which will be led by a commanding officer.

Major General Andrew Gregory, director general of Army personnel, said the programme would provide the "educational, occupational and welfare support soldiers need" and would "be delivered in partnership with service charities and other government departments".

Soldiers wounded in Afghanistan will continue to be treated at Selly Oak Hospital in Birmingham and receive rehabilitation therapy at Headley Court, Surrey.

But under the ARC scheme, they will receive support from one of the 12 units.

Those who leave the Army will be monitored and supported on their health, education, employment and accommodation needs.

Veterans Minister Kevan Jones said the scheme would deliver a "world-class" service.

He added: "It will either return individuals to duty or take them to a point where it is right for them to be discharged - however long that takes."

Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said he welcomed the government's commitment to rehabilitation centres, but regretted the delay in getting them going.

Can battlefield robots take the place of soldiers?

Can battlefield land-robots be made to obey the rules of war?

Can war be fought by lots of well-behaved machines, making it "safer for humans"? That is the seductive vision, and hope, of those manufacturing and researching the future of military robotics.

With 8,000 robots already in use, they believe they can bring about a military revolution.

Most of the robots currently deployed on land deal with non-combat tasks such as bomb disposal - unlike lethal aerial drones.

But Bob Quinn, who works for the US subsidiary of the British robot manufacturer QinetiQ, says the future promises more armed robots on the battlefield, including driverless vehicles.

"The closer you are to being shot, the more you understand the value of having a remote weapons capability," he says.

LISTEN TO THE PROGRAMME Robo Wars is on Radio 4 on Monday 8 February at 2000 GMT Or listen via the BBC iPlayer

Anyone who has seen the Terminator films may find this vision scary. Quinn admits that, even among senior military figures, "science fiction movies caused a great deal of angst".

He stresses the need to make sure "that the weaponised robots only operate under the control of the soldier and never independently".

But the speed of modern warfare can make direct human control difficult, says Peter Singer, author of Wired for War.

Take the automated counter-artillery system deployed in Afghanistan.

"The human reaction time when there's an incoming canon shell is basically we can get to mid-curse word… [This] system reacts and shoots it down in mid-air. We are in the loop. We can turn the system off, we can turn it on, but our power really isn't true decision-making power. It's veto power now," Singer says.

Vegetarian vehicles

But if automated systems are taking decisions, how can we be sure they are hitting the right targets and obeying the laws of war?

US academic Patrick Lin was recently commissioned by the US military to study robot ethics.

QinetiQ's Talon robots are used to counter improvised explosive devices

"When you talk about autonomous robots," he argues, "a natural response might be to programme them to be ethical. Isn't that what we do with our computers?"

A striking example of a robot in need of careful programming is a driverless vehicle developed by the Pentagon, called the EATR.

It can refuel itself on long journeys by scavenging for organic material - which raises the haunting spectre of a machine consuming corpses on the battlefield.

Its inventor, Dr Robert Finkelstein of Robotic Technology Inc, insists it will consume "organic material but mostly vegetarian."

"The robot can only do what it's programmed to do, it has a menu," he adds.

All this worries sceptics like Professor Noel Sharkey, co-founder of the International Committee for Robot Arms Control.

If there's an area of fighting that's so intense that you can assume that anyone there is a combatant, then unleash the robots Dr Patrick Lin, California Polytechnic

"You could train it all you want, give it all the ethical rules in the world. If the input to it isn't correct, it's no good whatsoever," he says. "Humans can be held accountable, machines can't."

If you cannot rely on a robot knowing what to target or distinguishing between enemy forces and innocent non-combatants, Patrick Lin suggests another solution.

"If there's an area of fighting that's so intense that you can assume that anyone there is a combatant," he argues, "then unleash the robots in that kind of scenario. Some people call that a kill box. Any target [in a kill box] is assumed to be a legitimate target."

No emotions

Other researchers suggest robots may avoid the faults of human soldiers.

"Robots that are programmed properly are less likely to make errors and kill non-combatants, innocent people, because they're not emotional, they won't be afraid, act irresponsibly in some situations," says Robert Finkelstein.

But Christopher Coker of the London School of Economics, an observer of wars past and present, disagrees.

Let's keep our guys safe, and kill the enemy Bob Quinn

"We should put our trust in the human factor," he says.

"Unfortunately the military in their reports often see the human factor as what they call the weakest link. I don't think it's the weakest link. I think it's the strongest link."

Computers will never be able to simulate the "warrior ethos", the mindset and ethical outlook of the professional soldier, he says.

The military revolution in robotics has already advanced rapidly in the air, where remotely piloted drone aircraft are now central to conflicts such as Afghanistan.

On the ground, use of robots has so far been more limited.

Yet given the political and popular concern about casualties among Nato forces, robot manufacturer Bob Quinn's sales pitch is likely to be persuasive.

"Let's keep our guys safe, and kill the enemy. Unfortunately, in warfare that's the situation you're in."

Can battlefield robots take the place of soldiers?

Can battlefield land-robots be made to obey the rules of war?

Can war be fought by lots of well-behaved machines, making it "safer for humans"? That is the seductive vision, and hope, of those manufacturing and researching the future of military robotics.

With 8,000 robots already in use, they believe they can bring about a military revolution.

Most of the robots currently deployed on land deal with non-combat tasks such as bomb disposal - unlike lethal aerial drones.

But Bob Quinn, who works for the US subsidiary of the British robot manufacturer QinetiQ, says the future promises more armed robots on the battlefield, including driverless vehicles.

"The closer you are to being shot, the more you understand the value of having a remote weapons capability," he says.

LISTEN TO THE PROGRAMME Robo Wars is on Radio 4 on Monday 8 February at 2000 GMT Or listen via the BBC iPlayer

Anyone who has seen the Terminator films may find this vision scary. Quinn admits that, even among senior military figures, "science fiction movies caused a great deal of angst".

He stresses the need to make sure "that the weaponised robots only operate under the control of the soldier and never independently".

But the speed of modern warfare can make direct human control difficult, says Peter Singer, author of Wired for War.

Take the automated counter-artillery system deployed in Afghanistan.

"The human reaction time when there's an incoming canon shell is basically we can get to mid-curse word… [This] system reacts and shoots it down in mid-air. We are in the loop. We can turn the system off, we can turn it on, but our power really isn't true decision-making power. It's veto power now," Singer says.

Vegetarian vehicles

But if automated systems are taking decisions, how can we be sure they are hitting the right targets and obeying the laws of war?

US academic Patrick Lin was recently commissioned by the US military to study robot ethics.

QinetiQ's Talon robots are used to counter improvised explosive devices

"When you talk about autonomous robots," he argues, "a natural response might be to programme them to be ethical. Isn't that what we do with our computers?"

A striking example of a robot in need of careful programming is a driverless vehicle developed by the Pentagon, called the EATR.

It can refuel itself on long journeys by scavenging for organic material - which raises the haunting spectre of a machine consuming corpses on the battlefield.

Its inventor, Dr Robert Finkelstein of Robotic Technology Inc, insists it will consume "organic material but mostly vegetarian."

"The robot can only do what it's programmed to do, it has a menu," he adds.

All this worries sceptics like Professor Noel Sharkey, co-founder of the International Committee for Robot Arms Control.

If there's an area of fighting that's so intense that you can assume that anyone there is a combatant, then unleash the robots Dr Patrick Lin, California Polytechnic

"You could train it all you want, give it all the ethical rules in the world. If the input to it isn't correct, it's no good whatsoever," he says. "Humans can be held accountable, machines can't."

If you cannot rely on a robot knowing what to target or distinguishing between enemy forces and innocent non-combatants, Patrick Lin suggests another solution.

"If there's an area of fighting that's so intense that you can assume that anyone there is a combatant," he argues, "then unleash the robots in that kind of scenario. Some people call that a kill box. Any target [in a kill box] is assumed to be a legitimate target."

No emotions

Other researchers suggest robots may avoid the faults of human soldiers.

"Robots that are programmed properly are less likely to make errors and kill non-combatants, innocent people, because they're not emotional, they won't be afraid, act irresponsibly in some situations," says Robert Finkelstein.

But Christopher Coker of the London School of Economics, an observer of wars past and present, disagrees.

Let's keep our guys safe, and kill the enemy Bob Quinn

"We should put our trust in the human factor," he says.

"Unfortunately the military in their reports often see the human factor as what they call the weakest link. I don't think it's the weakest link. I think it's the strongest link."

Computers will never be able to simulate the "warrior ethos", the mindset and ethical outlook of the professional soldier, he says.

The military revolution in robotics has already advanced rapidly in the air, where remotely piloted drone aircraft are now central to conflicts such as Afghanistan.

On the ground, use of robots has so far been more limited.

Yet given the political and popular concern about casualties among Nato forces, robot manufacturer Bob Quinn's sales pitch is likely to be persuasive.

"Let's keep our guys safe, and kill the enemy. Unfortunately, in warfare that's the situation you're in."