The word ¡°robot¡± was coined in 1922 by the Czech playwright Karel Capec for his science fiction play R.U.R. (Rossum¡®s Universal Robots). The word comes from the Czech robata, compulsory labor. In the play the robots, designed by the Rossum factory to labor for the human race, rebel and conquer the human race instead.

Since then there has been a kind of contest between science fiction writers, toy manufacturers and engineers as to who could invent the most frightening and/or useful robot.

It seems that America has won this contest with its robot airplane, the first version of which was called ¡°Predator¡± (meaning an animal that lives by eating other animals). The newer model is called ¡°Reaper¡± (meaning the angel of death). This killer aircraft is ¡°piloted¡± by a person located far away, sitting at a desk, looking at a screen and pushing buttons. It is, we know from the newspapers, used to assassinate ¡°enemies¡± of the US (more accurately, suspected ¡°enemies¡±) by blowing them up with rockets. It seems that the people who get blown up (the suspected ¡°enemies¡± and whoever happens to be nearby) have no idea they are being attacked until the explosion comes.

In what way is this killer robot more useful than an airplane with a pilot on board? The answer is obvious: the operator is in no danger of being killed or injured. This is a new kind of warfare (if indeed it can even be called ¡°warfare¡±) in which one side does all the killing and the other side does all the dying. It seems to be the direct opposite of the other new form of warfare resorted to by many of the groups opposed to the US presence in the Middle East, the suicide bombing, in which the killer inevitably dies along with his or her victims.

Why does the US need this fabulously expensive aircraft? Many people have not noticed this obvious fact, but the US military, which Barack Obama said in his recent election victory speech is ¡°the most powerful military in history¡±, has lost its ability to win wars.

Writing for Korean readers I probably should not give an opinion on the Korean War (though it seems to me it ended in a tie), but certainly from the Vietnam war on the US has not gained a clear victory in any of its major wars. It has defeated, or seemed to defeat, several armies, but it has not achieved its war aims.

There are many reasons for this, but I think the main reason is that the US has been waging wars that are not winnable. These are not wars to defend the US against an aggressor, but rather wars to defend the US empire abroad, and always fought in some other country.

When a foreign army invades a country, the people there will fight passionately, and if necessary generation after generation, to drive it out. For an invading army there may be passion at the beginning, but as the years pass by, the passion fades. It becomes difficult to explain to the troops why they should risk their lives fighting in a foreign land, against an enemy that poses no threat to the US. Between 2002 and 2008 US military enlistment rates declined (the US military stopped drafting people during the Vietnam War, because too many draftees became anti-war activists). The recruiters changed the rules, raising the maximum age from 35 to 42, accepting convicted felons (if they showed repentance) etc. From 2008 enlistment began to rise again, partly because with the 2008 economic crash for many people there were no other jobs, and partly because fewer and fewer US troops were getting killed.

The Reaper killer robot aircraft is the perfect weapon for fighting a war that the soldiers don¡¯t care about much. However, as many commentators have pointed out, it cannot achieve a victory. For every ¡°suspected enemy¡± the US assassinates, many others are so enraged that they take his/her place.

People who have military alliances with the US should consider: morality aside, from the standpoint of realpolitik, it is unwise to make a military alliance with a loser.