Army needs to adapt to the changing character of war with ethical impulse training. Those recruited and trained as soldiers today will tomorrow wield weapons with exponentially growing ranges, lethality and speed. The technology they will manage will deliver capabilities that previous generations did not dream of. But they will also, almost certainly, need to navigate ethical dilemmas we have not yet foreseen nor can easily comprehend. This article argues for re-valuing ethical impulse training – both giving it revalued priority but also basing training in Defence values.

As with war in general, borrowing from Clausewitz, there is an enduring nature to military ethical decision-making. Soldiers always need discipline to only target military members and equipment, and not intentionally harm civilians or POWs (discrimination). They ought not overuse force to achieve an aim (proportionality), only use violence when necessary for the mission (military necessity), and insist on respect for all including adversaries (humanity). These Just War principles are outlined in ADF Philosophical Doctrine – Military Ethics.

Yet, the character of war is rapidly evolving, seemingly faster with new technological leaps toward future warfare. With the advent of new technologies placing more destructive power and diplomatic responsibilities in the hands of ordinary diggers, there is now, more than ever, the need for robust military ethical discussion making tools and acumen. When considering range, speed, and lethality of weapon systems it is tempting to think first of our ballistic armaments, and this would not be a misplaced thought with the recent acquisition of High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) and National Advanced Surface to Air Missile Systems (NASAMS). These capabilities have ranges, speeds, and lethality which have historically been the purview of Navy and Air Force platforms. Still, the modern integrated soldier will trigger longer-range precision strikes using artillery and missile capabilities that bring renewed complexity to the land battle.

Yet, consider the range, speed, and potential lethality of the Space and Cyber domains which will, from a dark room without windows, likely take centre stage in the next large scale combat operation. The Australian Army Contribution to the National Defence Strategy explains soldiers are bridging from the land domain to the littoral, cooperating with aviators and drones in the air, and stretching into Space and Cyber Warfare. Soldiers will have instantaneous global effects, less response and lead times, and be more independent of chain of command advice than ever before. They will utilise surveillance, machines, and weapon systems that require additional layers of authority to use lethal force.

Two initial problems arise requiring ethical consideration. Firstly, these capabilities are so complex that there is an amplified disconnect between the skills of the operator and the knowledge of the decision-maker. Secondly, the nature of these domains will speed up the targeting processes, thus potentially causing decision-making in the targeting continuum to be the slowest and most laborious part of the process. With less time, more complexity, and more destructive effects, there needs to be increased value placed on ethical impulse training at all levels.

Defence has adopted the Detailed Mission Planning Process (DMPP) and its increased emphasis on intuition throughout the planning cycle. This, and recent updates to ethics doctrine are helpful steps in the right direction. As a learning organisation we need to be adapting at every level and maximising simulation alongside instruction and coaching, consistent with ADF Philosophical Doctrine – Learning. However, more can be done to further adapt ethical decision-making processes and prepare and protect decision makers in the next fight.

We need not just the “Strategic Corporal” who navigates combat, humanitarian, and peace-keeping missions as General Krulak recognised, but “strategic moral Corporals” as Deane-Peter Baker suggests. With war’s changing character, we cannot tell recruits all ethical dilemmas and tests of integrity to expect. But critically, we need to continue to refine ethical aspects of Good Soldiering they can apply with new capabilities.

The exponential growth in weapon ranges, lethality, and speed raises four areas that demand ethical attention:

1. How do we take our Ethics Doctrine and turn it into a range of practical decision-making tools that fit within the various stages of the DMPP, as well as encompass the full spectrum of potential ethical dilemmas in the modern theatre of operations across all domains of warfare?
2. How do we train those models in a realistic, relevant manner that instils instinctive responses that reduce “ethical latency” while maintain the principles of Good Soldiering?
3. How do we build trust within decentralised teams that may be requested to conduct lethal actions on someone else’s ethical reasoning?
4. How do we protect the moral integrity and health of our people who are being asked to pioneer innovative ways of executing the enduring nature of war, taking them once again to the brink of their humanity as the character rapidly evolves?

We have been thinking about how to develop ethical impulse training not just in classrooms but integrated throughout a rapidly evolving warfighting continuum. For example, in ADF Values Training Transformation and ADF Values – Quick Military Education (QMEs) we find shared ADF values help us be the calibre of soldiers who respond appropriately when the proverbial hits the fan.

Part of our inspiration is from then-Director General of Training and Doctrine (DGTRADOC), BRIG Ben James, arguing in “Army Training System Transformation” for moving beyond rhetoric to effective training actions. He suggested part of the necessary shift of transforming training is to “help our instructors become creative and engaging teachers, coaches, mentors and facilitators … We won’t be asking them to do more – we’ll be giving them the skills to do things differently.” What then do instructors do differently to re-value ethical impulse training?

MAJGEN Andrew Hocking examined lessons from Afghanistan in “Preparing for the Future”. He recommended mandating regular and ongoing ethics, LOAC, and cultural training for all levels and testing this in “realistic and high-pressure training scenarios beyond the classroom” as part of “ready” certification. The end goal is that soldiers will have their ethical muscles developed and reactions practised so that the impulse of split-second decisions will be ethical.

Effective training tools include integrated micro-ethics, ethical debriefs / hotwashes, quick adaptation practice, and vocational specific models that find their basis in ADF-P Doctrine. To use the Walk-Run-Sprint metaphor of training, if Walk is theory, then Run is scenarios, and Sprint is vocation specific practice to get after.

One aspect of scenarios we want to develop is integration with all classroom learning and field exercises. Imagine discussing timely ethical decisions with your troop while doing CBRN training, using the firing range, during a pre-deployment course, learning Combat First Aid, or on a School of Intelligence interrogation course.

Didactics of Military Ethics discusses how some militaries are drilling virtue-development, challenging soldiers to judge how to apply ethics to unique unprecedented situations, hosting conversations between soldiers who have deployed and those in training, and unpacking scenarios in classrooms and field settings. Scenarios have been fruitfully used in ethical and other good soldiering training for decades, but what do best-practice scenarios look like in the context of actors inherent in the changing character of war including the exponential growth in weapon ranges, lethality, and speed? 

Army’s Contribution to the National Defence Strategy assumes the nature of war is enduring in how it is fought for political ends in violent and unpredictable ways. There is also an enduring nature to the demands of military ethical decision-making. Some character and ethics training methods of the past are worth retaining. But as the character of conflict is changing and with exponential growth in weapon ranges, lethality and speed there is a need to continually re-value ethical impulse training.