FoW (11): Enhancing human performance

By Daniel P. Sukman


Best Defense Future
of War entrant

One of the primary elements of military research and
development is how to enhance human performance in combat, from better
equipment, weapons with longer reach, lighter loads to carry, better
physiological preparation, to all-encompassing physical enhancements. Today,
with advancements in science and technology, the U.S. military is at a crossroads
in determining how far to go in considering how to attain soldiers, airmen,
Marines, and sailors who can physically outperform our potential adversaries. To
borrow from the Olympic motto, the future of war will demand "faster, stronger,
and higher."

The limits of enhanced human performance needs to be where
the enhancements negatively effect a person the day after they leave the U.S.
Military. Although the military is a profession, unlike doctors and lawyers,
serving as a soldier does not encompass the entirety of adulthood. Most servicemembers
will leave service in their early twenties, and even those who put in 20-30
years of service will still depart with half a lifetime remaining on earth. The
complexity of the issue revolves around the argument that although certain
human enhancements may negatively affect your life after the service, it may
extend your life so you reach that point. Looking at the different ways we can
influence the human body to survive and win on future battlefields is the next
step in the evolution of the American way of war.

To meet the demands of the future battlefield, the means of
altering the human body and mind that we as a society should find acceptable
needs to be examined. To highlight the complexities, I offer the following
"lists of things" that enhance human performance, be it in the office, cockpit
or sports field. Think about what is considered "legal" what is "ethical" and
why.

Coffee, soda,
Snickers bars, amphetamines, Ritalin




Cold medicine, Human
Growth Hormone (HGH), performance enhancing drugs (PEDs), anabolic steroids,
pain killers




Vaccinations, Tommy
John surgery, Lasik eye surgery, Blood Doping/EPO, training at high altitude

As you look at each list, you can see a variety of methods,
be it ingestion of caffeine, or a surgery that physically alters your god-given
natural abilities. Some methods on the list are banned by the Olympics (cold
medication) and professional sports (deer antler spray) but remain legal for
the general populace, others are encouraged (Tommy John surgery), while others are
illegal to obtain on your own. Some of the items, such as coffee and soda, are
even banned by some religions due to the caffeine within those drinks.

An unspoken truth is that soldiers, like athletes, do not
have to be convinced to take performance enhancing drugs. Legions of staff
officers start their day with pots of coffee followed by the nicotine rush
contained in dip and other smokeless tobacco products. Similarly, the use of
drugs such as Ambien to promote sleep in stressful situations or when travelling
long distances is widely used in the armed forces. Pilots have a long history
of taking "no doze"-type pills and even amphetamines when required to fly long
distances. A "Red Team" member worth his salt would do well to find an
asymmetric way to limit coffee to staffs and energy drinks and dip to young
soldiers.

Sleep plans, or as those in the military call it "fatigue
management," is a vital part of any combat mission planning. In the 2012 Marine
Corps S&T Strategic Plan, planning for sleep is as vital as "planning for
food, fuel, ammunition or other essential logistical supplies." There may be a
risk of addiction that must be balanced, however, with the pharmaceutical
agents that exist to enhance the effectiveness of sleep during combat. If those
drugs enhance the decisions of leaders, or allow soldiers to operate at higher
altitudes, and if that, in turn, will save U.S. lives in battle, those methods
should be pursued.

In the sport of cycling, taking Erythropoietin (EPO)to raise
red blood cell counts, thus improving oxygen delivery to the muscles, is
officially banned (as Lance Armstrong is well aware of) but it is quite legal
to train at high altitude or sleep in a hyperbaric tent, which achieves exactly
the same result physiologically. Should the U.S. military, in preparation for
combat in places such as Afghanistan take EPO, or limit itself to train in
areas of high altitude? Why not allow soldiers in combat to take EPO if it will
enhance their performance and increase the odds of completing missions and coming
home alive?

Aside from biological enhancements, actual physical changes
to servicemembers can be envisioned in the future. Today we are able to replace
lost limbs on our wounded warriors, but can we add to or change (permanently)
physical characteristics of our servicemembers to provide them with one-on-one
overmatch against potential adversaries? If we can change the skin composition
to be tougher and more resistant to bullets and shrapnel, should we do so? Of
course, as Patrick Lin noted in his article "Could
Human Enhancement Turn Soldiers into Weapons that Violate International Law? Yes" in
the January 2013 issue of The
Atlantic, doing so might embolden our adversaries to engage in harsher
tactics and procedures when fighting U.S. forces. Sleep deprivation may not
torture you if you physically don't require sleep.

Enhancements in human performance, be it physical or mental,
can occur long before it becomes a necessity due to a catastrophic injury
incurred in training or in combat. If technology would allow for soldiers to
have surgery to increase their running pace, or for a plate to be inserted into
the knees or back that makes a parachute landing fall easier, or carrying a 70
pound rucksack not all that difficult, why not perform that surgery "left of
the boom," so to speak.

Mental enhancements can be a necessity in the fast-paced
ever-changing complex world of combat. This complex world demands rapid
decision-making more often than not with imperfect information and
intelligence. Should the use of certain drugs to focus the attention of
decision makers (e.g. Ritalin) and better prepare forces for combat be
encouraged? I am not advocating making military leaders walking drug stores,
but if more focused mental preparation and planning of combat can save lives,
why not offer the best enhancements modern science can provide?

The question becomes, should servicemembers be required to
risk their long-term health in pursuit of short-term physical and mental
enhancements. Professional athletes are largely prohibited from doing this, hence
the ban on PEDs and anabolic steroids. However, soldiers, Marines, airmen, and
sailors are expected as part of their service to put both their health and
lives at risk. As Clausewitz wrote,

war is violence." The future of warfare will require stronger, faster soldiers
who have more endurance; however we must be careful not create a new generation
of East German Olympic swimmers.

As the science and technology of warfare continues to
proliferate around the world, the assumption should be made that adversaries of
the United States and our allies and partners will not limit themselves with
ethical considerations in how they enhance the performance of their
footsoldiers. U.S. soldiers will not go into combat high on khat, but should
acknowledge that certain adversaries in Africa may be as we saw in Task Force
Ranger in 1993. Performance enhancing drugs, stimulants, and other narcotics
will certainly be used by our adversaries, and we should develop training and
strategy that accounts for this. We must also prepare for adversaries who have
access to advanced technologies who may use nanotechnology, or even
pharmaceuticals such as Adderall to increase their cognitive performance.

Risk of each human enhancement must be a paramount factor in
considering what we can do with servicemembers. For example, steroids can cause
terrible health problems, like liver and kidney failure, while the risks of eye
surgery are much lower both in terms of probabilities and effects. By this
standard, we accept greater risk in the now, in that performance will be
reduced in warfare; however the risk is greater of catastrophic injury or death
when involved in combat operations.

What side of the risk coin
should we as a military profession find easier to accept?

Major Daniel Sukman, U.S. Army, is a strategist at the Army
Capabilities Integration Center, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command at
Fort Eustis, Virginia. He holds a B.A. from Norwich University and an M.A. from
Webster University. During his career, MAJ Sukman served with the 101st
Airborne Division (Air Assault) and United States European Command. His combat
experience includes three combat tours in Iraq. This
article represents the author's views and not necessarily the views of the U.S.
Army or Department of Defense.

Tom note: Got your own views of the future of war? Consider submitting an essay . The contest remains open for at least another few weeks. Try to keep it
short -- no more than 750 words, if possible. And please, no footnotes or
recycled war college papers.