Hubbry Logo
Lethal autonomous weaponLethal autonomous weaponMain
Open search
Lethal autonomous weapon
Community hub
Lethal autonomous weapon
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Lethal autonomous weapon
Lethal autonomous weapon
Lethal autonomous weapon
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Serbian Land Rover Defender towing trailer with "Miloš" tracked combat robot

Lethal autonomous weapons (LAWs) are a type of military drone or military robot which are autonomous in that they can independently search for and engage targets based on programmed constraints and descriptions. As of 2025, most military drones and military robots are not truly autonomous.[1] LAWs are also known as lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS), autonomous weapon systems (AWS), robotic weapons or killer robots. LAWs may engage in drone warfare in the air, on land, on water, underwater, or in space.

Understanding autonomy in weaponry

[edit]

In weapons development, the term "autonomous" is somewhat ambiguous and can vary hugely between different scholars, nations and organizations.[2]

The official United States Department of Defense Policy on Autonomy in Weapon Systems defines an Autonomous Weapons System as one that "...once activated, can select and engage targets without further intervention by a human operator."[3] Heather Roff, a writer for Case Western Reserve University School of Law, describes autonomous weapon systems as "... capable of learning and adapting their 'functioning in response to changing circumstances in the environment in which [they are] deployed,' as well as capable of making firing decisions on their own."[4]

The British Ministry of Defence defines autonomous weapon systems as "systems that are capable of understanding higher level intent and direction. From this understanding and its perception of its environment, such a system is able to take appropriate action to bring about a desired state. It is capable of deciding a course of action, from a number of alternatives, without depending on human oversight and control - such human engagement with the system may still be present, though. While the overall activity of an autonomous unmanned aircraft will be predictable, individual actions may not be."[5]

Scholars such as Peter Asaro and Mark Gubrud believe that any weapon system that is capable of releasing a lethal force without the operation, decision, or confirmation of a human supervisor can be deemed autonomous.[6][7]

Creating treaties between states requires a commonly accepted labeling of what exactly constitutes an autonomous weapon.[8]

Automatic defensive systems

[edit]

The oldest automatically triggered lethal weapon is the land mine, used since at least the 1600s, and naval mines, used since at least the 1700s.

Some current examples of LAWs are automated "hardkill" active protection systems, such as a radar-guided CIWS systems used to defend ships that have been in use since the 1970s (e.g., the US Phalanx CIWS). Such systems can autonomously identify and attack oncoming missiles, rockets, artillery fire, aircraft, and surface vessels according to criteria set by the human operator. Similar systems exist for tanks, such as the Russian Arena, the Israeli Trophy, and the German AMAP-ADS. Several types of stationary sentry guns, which can fire at humans and vehicles, are used in South Korea and Israel. Many missile defence systems, such as Iron Dome, also have autonomous targeting capabilities.

The main reason for not having a "human in the loop" in these systems is the need for rapid response. They have generally been used to protect personnel and installations against incoming projectiles.

Autonomous offensive systems

[edit]

According to The Economist, as technology advances, future applications of unmanned undersea vehicles might include mine clearance, mine-laying, anti-submarine sensor networking in contested waters, patrolling with active sonar, resupplying manned submarines, and becoming low-cost missile platforms.[9] In 2018, the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review alleged that Russia was developing a "new intercontinental, nuclear-armed, nuclear-powered, undersea autonomous torpedo" named "Status 6".[10]

The Russian Federation is currently developing artificially intelligent missiles,[11] drones,[12] unmanned vehicles, military robots and medic robots.[13][14][15][16]

Israeli Minister Ayoob Kara stated in 2017 that Israel is developing military robots, including ones as small as flies.[17]

In October 2018, Zeng Yi, a senior executive at the Chinese defense firm Norinco, gave a speech in which he said that "In future battlegrounds, there will be no people fighting", and that the use of lethal autonomous weapons in warfare is "inevitable".[18] In 2019, US Defense Secretary Mark Esper lashed out at China for selling drones capable of taking life with no human oversight.[19]

The British Army deployed new unmanned vehicles and military robots in 2019.[20]

The US Navy is developing "ghost" fleets of unmanned ships.[21]

An STM Kargu drone

In 2020 a Kargu 2 drone hunted down and attacked a human target in Libya, according to a report from the UN Security Council's Panel of Experts on Libya, published in March 2021. This may have been the first time an autonomous killer robot armed with lethal weaponry attacked human beings.[22][23]

In May 2021 Israel conducted an AI guided combat drone swarm attack in Gaza.[24]

Since then there have been numerous reports of swarms and other autonomous weapons systems being used on battlefields around the world.[25]

In addition, DARPA is working on making swarms of 250 autonomous lethal drones available to the American military.[26]

[edit]

Degree of human control

[edit]

Three classifications of the degree of human control of autonomous weapon systems were laid out by Bonnie Docherty in a 2012 Human Rights Watch report.[27]

  • human-in-the-loop: a human must instigate the action of the weapon (in other words not fully autonomous).
  • human-on-the-loop: a human may abort an action.
  • human-out-of-the-loop: no human action is involved.

Standard used in US policy

[edit]

Current US policy states: "Autonomous … weapons systems shall be designed to allow commanders and operators to exercise appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force."[28] However, the policy requires that autonomous weapon systems that kill people or use kinetic force, selecting and engaging targets without further human intervention, be certified as compliant with "appropriate levels" and other standards, not that such weapon systems cannot meet these standards and are therefore forbidden.[29] "Semi-autonomous" hunter-killers that autonomously identify and attack targets do not even require certification.[29] Deputy Defense Secretary Robert O. Work said in 2016 that the Defense Department would "not delegate lethal authority to a machine to make a decision", but might need to reconsider this since "authoritarian regimes" may do so.[30] In October 2016 President Barack Obama stated that early in his career he was wary of a future in which a US president making use of drone warfare could "carry on perpetual wars all over the world, and a lot of them covert, without any accountability or democratic debate".[31][32] In the US, security-related AI has fallen under the purview of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence since 2018.[33][34] On October 31, 2019, the United States Department of Defense's Defense Innovation Board published the draft of a report outlining five principles for weaponized AI and making 12 recommendations for the ethical use of artificial intelligence by the Department of Defense that would ensure a human operator would always be able to look into the 'black box' and understand the kill-chain process. A major concern is how the report will be implemented.[35]

Possible violations of ethics and international acts

[edit]

Stuart Russell, professor of computer science from University of California, Berkeley stated the concern he has with LAWs is that his view is that it is unethical and inhumane. The main issue with this system is it is hard to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants.[36]

There is concern by some economists[37] and legal scholars about whether LAWs would violate International Humanitarian Law, especially the principle of distinction, which requires the ability to discriminate combatants from non-combatants, and the principle of proportionality, which requires that damage to civilians be proportional to the military aim.[38] This concern is often invoked as a reason to ban "killer robots" altogether - but it is doubtful that this concern can be an argument against LAWs that do not violate International Humanitarian Law.[39][40][41]

A 2021 report by the American Congressional Research Service states that "there are no domestic or international legal prohibitions on the development of use of LAWs," although it acknowledges ongoing talks at the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW).[42]

LAWs are said by some to blur the boundaries of who is responsible for a particular killing.[43][37] Philosopher Robert Sparrow argues that autonomous weapons are causally but not morally responsible, similar to child soldiers. In each case, he argues there is a risk of atrocities occurring without an appropriate subject to hold responsible, which violates jus in bello.[44] Thomas Simpson and Vincent Müller argue that they may make it easier to record who gave which command.[45] Potential IHL violations by LAWs are – by definition – only applicable in conflict settings that involve the need to distinguish between combatants and civilians. As such, any conflict scenario devoid of civilians' presence – i.e. in space or the deep seas – would not run into the obstacles posed by IHL.[46]

Campaigns to ban LAWs

[edit]
Rally on the steps of San Francisco City Hall, protesting against a vote to authorize police use of deadly force robots.
Rally on the steps of San Francisco City Hall, protesting against a vote to authorize police use of deadly force robots

The possibility of LAWs has generated significant debate, especially about the risk of "killer robots" roaming the earth - in the near or far future. The group Campaign to Stop Killer Robots formed in 2013. In July 2015, over 1,000 experts in artificial intelligence signed a letter warning of the threat of an artificial intelligence arms race and calling for a ban on autonomous weapons. The letter was presented in Buenos Aires at the 24th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-15) and was co-signed by Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, Steve Wozniak, Noam Chomsky, Skype co-founder Jaan Tallinn and Google DeepMind co-founder Demis Hassabis, among others.[47][48]

According to PAX For Peace (one of the founding organisations of the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots), fully automated weapons (FAWs) will lower the threshold of going to war as soldiers are removed from the battlefield and the public is distanced from experiencing war, giving politicians and other decision-makers more space in deciding when and how to go to war.[49] They warn that once deployed, FAWs will make democratic control of war more difficult, something that author of Kill Decision (a novel on the topic) and IT specialist Daniel Suarez also warned about: according to him it might recentralize power into very few hands by requiring very few people to go to war.[49]

There are websites[clarification needed] protesting the development of LAWs by presenting undesirable ramifications if research into the appliance of artificial intelligence to designation of weapons continues. On these websites, news about ethical and legal issues are constantly updated for visitors to recap with recent news about international meetings and research articles concerning LAWs.[50]

The Holy See has called for the international community to ban the use of LAWs on several occasions. In November 2018, Archbishop Ivan Jurkovic, the permanent observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, stated that “In order to prevent an arms race and the increase of inequalities and instability, it is an imperative duty to act promptly: now is the time to prevent LAWs from becoming the reality of tomorrow’s warfare.” The Church worries that these weapons systems have the capability to irreversibly alter the nature of warfare, create detachment from human agency and put in question the humanity of societies.[51]

As of 29 March 2019, the majority of governments represented at a UN meeting to discuss the matter favoured a ban on LAWs.[52] A minority of governments, including those of Australia, Israel, Russia, the UK, and the US, opposed a ban.[52] The United States has stated that autonomous weapons have helped prevent the killing of civilians.[53]

In December 2022, a vote of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to authorize San Francisco Police Department use of LAWs drew national attention and protests.[54][55] The Board reversed this vote in a subsequent meeting.[56]

Regulation without banning

[edit]

A third approach focuses on regulating the use of autonomous weapon systems in lieu of a ban.[57] Military AI arms control will likely require the institutionalization of new international norms embodied in effective technical specifications combined with active monitoring and informal ('Track II') diplomacy by communities of experts, together with a legal and political verification process.[58][59][60][61] In 2021, the United States Department of Defense requested a dialogue with the Chinese People's Liberation Army on AI-enabled autonomous weapons but was refused.[62]

A summit of 60 countries was held in 2023 on the responsible use of AI in the military.[63]

On 22 December 2023, a United Nations General Assembly resolution was adopted to support international discussion regarding concerns about LAWs. The vote was 152 in favor, four against, and 11 abstentions.[64]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Lethal autonomous weapon

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) are weapon systems that, once activated, can independently select and engage using lethal without further intervention. These systems integrate sensors, algorithms, and effectors to perform critical functions in the targeting process, distinguishing them from semi-autonomous systems requiring approval for lethal actions. While definitions vary slightly across entities, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross emphasizing independence in target selection and attack, the core attribute remains the delegation of life-and-death decisions to machines. Development of LAWS has accelerated with advances in artificial intelligence and robotics, enabling applications in drones, ground vehicles, and munitions that operate in dynamic environments. A notable example is Turkey's STM Kargu-2 drone, a reported by a panel to have potentially hunted and attacked retreating fighters autonomously during Libya's civil war in 2020, marking one of the first documented instances of such technology in combat. Proponents argue LAWS offer advantages including reduced risk to operators, faster response times, and potentially greater precision in engagements compared to decision-making under stress, thereby minimizing in some scenarios. However, critics highlight ethical and legal challenges, such as diminished accountability for lethal outcomes, difficulties in ensuring compliance with principles like distinction and proportionality, and the risk of proliferation to non-state actors. As of 2025, no global treaty prohibits LAWS, with discussions continuing under the Group of Governmental Experts, extended to 2026 amid divergent national positions—some states advocating bans while others, including major powers, emphasize responsible development and human oversight rather than outright prohibition. U.S. Department of Defense policy permits LAWS subject to rigorous reviews ensuring legal compliance, reflecting a pragmatic approach prioritizing utility over preemptive restrictions. These systems thus embody a tension between technological inevitability and normative constraints, with empirical deployment evidence underscoring their operational feasibility despite ongoing regulatory impasse.

Definition and Core Concepts

Autonomy in Weapon Systems

Autonomy in weapon systems denotes the capacity of a platform, once deployed or activated, to independently perceive its environment, identify targets, and execute engagements without requiring further human input in the critical functions of selection and application of force. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) defines autonomous weapon systems as those that, following activation, can select and engage targets without additional intervention by a human operator, emphasizing the need for designs that permit commanders to retain appropriate levels of human judgment over force employment. This policy, outlined in DoD Directive 3000.09 updated on January 25, 2023, mandates rigorous testing, safety protocols, and legal reviews to mitigate risks of malfunction or unlawful actions, including requirements for systems to disengage autonomously if failures occur. The concept extends beyond mere , which involves pre-programmed responses to fixed stimuli, to encompass adaptive in unpredictable scenarios through integrated sensors, algorithms, and effectors. analyses distinguish this by noting that fully autonomous systems operate in a "human-out-of-the-loop" mode, capable of target discrimination based on models trained on vast datasets, potentially operating in swarms or contested environments where oversight is impractical. International bodies, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), describe autonomous weapons as those able to independently select and attack targets, advocating for control to ensure compliance with principles like distinction and proportionality. DoD guidelines require autonomous systems to undergo operational testing under realistic conditions, including electronic warfare simulations, to verify performance and incorporate fail-safes like geofencing or override mechanisms, reflecting from prior semi-autonomous deployments that highlighted error rates in complex battlespaces. These measures address causal factors such as sensor degradation or algorithmic biases, which could lead to erroneous engagements, as evidenced by documented incidents in remotely piloted systems where human factors compounded technical limitations. While proponents argue autonomy enhances precision and reduces operator fatigue—citing data from simulations showing faster response times—critics, including organizations, contend it erodes , though DoD policy counters this by mandating traceability in decision logs for post-engagement reviews.

Distinctions from Human-in-the-Loop Systems

(HITL) systems in weapon contexts require a human operator to exercise direct control or approval over critical functions, particularly target selection and the of lethal force, ensuring that engagement decisions incorporate human judgment at the point of action. These systems, often termed semi-autonomous, delegate routine tasks like tracking or guidance to machines but retain human veto authority or intervention capability to mitigate errors, adapt to dynamic environments, or align with . For instance, U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) policy categorizes such systems as those that "only engage individual targets or specific target groups that have been selected by a human operator." Lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS), by contrast, are designed to independently select and engage targets—including potentially human adversaries—without requiring further human intervention after initial activation or deployment, shifting decision-making authority entirely to the machine's algorithms and sensors. This autonomy enables operations at speeds exceeding human cognitive limits, such as in high-tempo scenarios where communication delays or would impair HITL performance, but it also eliminates real-time human oversight, raising risks of misidentification or unintended escalation due to algorithmic limitations in contextual understanding. DoD Directive 3000.09 explicitly defines LAWS as systems capable of this independent lethal action, while mandating senior-level reviews for their development to ensure compliance with and ethical standards, though it permits deployment under conditions allowing "appropriate levels of human judgment." A core operational distinction lies in environmental resilience and : HITL systems depend on reliable human-machine interfaces and communication links, which can be disrupted in contested or electronic warfare-heavy domains, whereas LAWS function in "comms-denied" settings by relying on onboard for target discrimination and engagement, potentially enhancing but introducing brittleness to adversarial countermeasures like spoofing sensors or exploiting AI biases. mechanisms also diverge; in HITL setups, human operators bear direct responsibility for lethal outcomes under frameworks like the laws of armed conflict, whereas LAWS diffuse this to system designers, programmers, and commanders, complicating attribution for errors such as false positives in civilian discrimination. U.S. policy, updated in January 2023, emphasizes designing LAWS with safeguards for human override where feasible, but does not categorically require a persistent "in-the-loop" presence for all autonomous functions, reflecting a balance between technological imperatives and oversight.

Levels of Autonomy

Autonomy levels in weapon systems describe the degree of independent decision-making capability delegated to the machine across the targeting cycle, including target detection, identification, prioritization, and engagement. These levels are determined by the extent of human oversight required for critical functions, particularly the application of lethal force. Frameworks for classification emphasize the balance between operational efficiency—enabled by reduced human latency and cognitive load—and ethical, legal, and strategic imperatives for retaining human judgment in life-and-death decisions. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 3000.09, updated in 2023, mandates that all autonomous and semi-autonomous systems incorporate design features allowing commanders to exercise appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force, while certifying systems for compliance before fielding. A widely referenced categorization in discussions of lethal autonomous weapons distinguishes three primary levels based on human involvement:
LevelDescriptionHuman Role
(HITL)The system executes predefined actions but requires human approval for target selection and engagement decisions.Direct control: Operator selects targets and authorizes firing, as in semi-autonomous systems under DoD policy.
Human-on-the-Loop (HOTL)The system independently detects, tracks, and may select targets using algorithms, but humans supervise and retain veto authority or intervention capability.Oversight: Operator monitors operations and can abort engagements, reducing reaction time delays while preserving .
Human-out-of-the-Loop (HOUTL)The system fully autonomously selects, prioritizes, and engages targets post-activation, without real-time human input.Minimal to none: Activation sets parameters, but subsequent lethal actions occur independently, as defined for autonomous systems in DoD Directive 3000.09.
This tiered model highlights a progression from operator-dominated control to machine-dominated execution, with from simulations and tests indicating that higher levels enhance precision in dynamic environments—such as reducing through faster target discrimination—but introduce risks of malfunction or unanticipated behavior due to algorithmic limitations in novel scenarios. For unmanned systems broadly, the National Institute of Standards and Technology's Autonomy Levels for Unmanned Systems (ALFUS) framework provides a more dimensional scale, assessing across 10 levels for functions like (from fully human-executed at Level 0 to fully system-executed without human input at higher levels), factoring in mission complexity, environmental uncertainty, and human-system interaction. This approach, developed in collaboration with DoD stakeholders since 2003 and updated through 2025, underscores that no current deployed lethal system reaches full Level 10 in contested domains, as verified by operational data from programs like counter-unmanned aerial systems. Policy constraints, including requirements for distinction and proportionality, limit HOUTL deployments, though technological advancements in enable adaptive behaviors approaching this threshold in controlled tests as of 2024.

Historical Evolution

Pre-21st Century Precursors

Naval mines represent the earliest form of lethal autonomous weapons, functioning through mechanical fuses that trigger detonation upon contact or proximity without human oversight. Contact mines, deployed in conflicts such as the of 1904–1905, used simple impact mechanisms to explode when struck by ships, sinking vessels indiscriminately and affecting neutral shipping. Their widespread use in , including by Britain from October 1914, highlighted their autonomy in target selection based solely on physical interaction, despite international efforts at the 1907 Hague Conference to restrict such devices. Self-propelled torpedoes advanced precursor autonomy through basic guidance mechanisms. The , introduced in 1866, featured engine propulsion but followed straight paths until developments incorporated homing. German G7e T5 Zaunkönig torpedoes, deployed from , used passive acoustic homing to detect and pursue propeller noise from ships, enabling independent and engagement after launch. Similarly, the U.S. Mark 24 "Fido" torpedo, entering service in 1943, employed acoustic homing to track submerged submarines by sound signatures, adjusting depth and course autonomously to close on detected threats. Aerial systems introduced preset or sensor-based autonomy in the early . The U.S. Kettering "Bug" of 1918 utilized guidance for preprogrammed flight to fixed coordinates, functioning without real-time input after release. Germany's V-1 flying bomb, operational from 1944, incorporated gyroscopic autopilots and basic altimeters to follow predetermined paths over distances up to 250 kilometers, detonating on impact or fuel exhaustion. Defensive close-in weapon systems marked a shift toward radar-enabled autonomy by the late . The , developed by starting in the 1960s and first deployed on USS King in 1980, integrates for independent search, detection, tracking, and engagement of incoming anti-ship missiles or , firing 20mm rounds at up to 4,500 per minute without operator intervention once activated. This system's full operational in threat evaluation and kill assessment represented a significant precursor to modern lethal autonomous capabilities, prioritizing rapid response over human decision-making in terminal defense scenarios.

Post-2000 Developments and Deployments

In the early , advancements in unmanned aerial vehicles and munitions accelerated, building on pre-existing technologies to incorporate greater autonomy in target detection and engagement. Israel's Harop, developed by and operational by 2009, represented a key evolution; this can autonomously navigate, loiter for up to 9 hours, and strike pre-designated or dynamically identified high-value targets such as radar systems or command centers using electro-optical sensors and onboard algorithms, without real-time human input post-launch. Deployments included Azerbaijan's extensive use of Harop during the 2020 , where it neutralized Armenian air defense assets, demonstrating effectiveness in suppressing enemy air defenses through semi-autonomous operations. ![STM Kargu drone][float-right] Turkey's , a rotary-wing introduced around 2015, integrated for facial recognition and target classification, enabling swarm-capable autonomous modes where the system can independently select and attack human targets. A pivotal deployment occurred in in 2020, when Kargu-2 units, supplied to the , reportedly operated in fully autonomous "hunt" mode to pursue and engage retreating fighters, marking the first documented battlefield instance of a lethal autonomous weapon system selecting and striking targets without human intervention, as detailed in a panel report. This incident highlighted the transition from controls to machine-driven lethality in asymmetric conflicts. In the United States, the Department of Defense formalized policies on via Directive 3000.09 in 2012, mandating appropriate human judgment for lethal force decisions while permitting systems capable of target selection and engagement under predefined constraints, such as in defensive scenarios. Programs like DARPA's Air Combat Evolution (tested in 2023) explored AI-piloted fighters, but no confirmed deployments of fully autonomous lethal systems occurred, with emphasis remaining on semi-autonomous tools like the loitering munitions, which rely on operator guidance for final engagement despite autonomous navigation features and have been supplied to since 2022 for anti-armor roles. Other nations advanced similar capabilities; deployed the SGR-A1 automated sentry system along the by 2010, featuring AI-driven target detection via thermal imaging and automatic firing options, though typically requiring human confirmation for lethal action. By the mid-2020s, proliferation continued, with Russia's Lancet loitering munitions exhibiting autonomous terminal guidance in strikes since 2022, and China's reported development of AI-enabled drone swarms, though verifiable autonomous lethal deployments remained limited outside and structured testing environments. These developments underscored a shift toward cost-effective, scalable to counter manpower shortages and enhance precision in high-threat zones, despite ongoing international debates over ethical and legal implications.

Technical Foundations

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Integration

and enable lethal autonomous weapons to process data, identify targets, and execute engagements without intervention in real-time. Core integration involves neural networks for tasks, such as and classification, often employing convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to analyze imagery from onboard cameras and radars. These algorithms are trained on large datasets distinguishing combatants from civilians or specific threats, using to minimize false positives in dynamic environments. Machine learning algorithms, including deep learning variants like YOLO for real-time target detection, facilitate autonomous navigation and loitering by predicting trajectories and avoiding obstacles. models further support processes, where systems learn optimal actions—such as pursuit or strike—through simulated trial-and-error, adapting to battlefield uncertainties like electronic warfare or terrain variability. In practice, the Turkish STM Kargu-2 quadcopter drone exemplifies this integration, utilizing embedded for independent target identification and engagement during its 30-minute flight endurance, with reported autonomous operations in as early as 2020. U.S. programs accelerate such capabilities; the Reinforcements (AIR) initiative, launched in 2023, develops AI-driven autonomy for multi-aircraft beyond-visual-range combat, incorporating for tactical coordination. Similarly, the Evolution (ACE) program, active since 2019, employs AI pilots in human-machine dogfights to refine autonomous targeting algorithms, achieving successes in simulated engagements by 2021. These efforts underscore ML's role in scaling autonomy from semi-supervised to fully independent lethal decisions, though vulnerabilities to adversarial inputs—such as spoofed —persist, requiring robust against .

Sensors, Targeting Algorithms, and Decision-Making Processes

Lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) employ a variety of sensors to perceive their operational environment and detect potential targets, including electro-optical and cameras for visual identification, as well as and acoustic sensors for broader . These sensors generate real-time data streams that feed into onboard processing units, enabling the system to monitor dynamic battlefields without continuous human input. Advanced implementations may incorporate biometric detection methods, such as or recognition, to differentiate individuals based on physiological or movement patterns. Targeting algorithms in LAWS primarily rely on models trained to process inputs and classify objects as threats or non-threats, often using techniques for and tracking. For instance, convolutional neural networks analyze imagery to identify predefined target profiles, such as signatures or behavioral indicators, with reported accuracies exceeding 85% in controlled tests for certain loitering munitions. These algorithms enable autonomous navigation and target locking, as seen in the Turkish STM Kargu-2 drone, which embeds for real-time target recognition without requiring operator for in fully autonomous modes. Integration of allows adaptation to novel environments through learned patterns from training datasets, though performance degrades in cluttered or adversarial conditions due to occlusions or countermeasures. Decision-making processes in LAWS synthesize sensor and targeting outputs against embedded , typically encoded as software thresholds for lethal action, such as proximity to confirmed threats or mission parameters. Once activated, the system evaluates probabilities—e.g., confidence scores from ML classifiers exceeding set limits—to select and prosecute targets independently, as demonstrated in reports of Kargu-2 units autonomously hunting retreating forces in circa 2020. This process often incorporates hybrid elements, where initial human-defined parameters guide AI-driven refinements, but full delegates final kill decisions to algorithmic logic rather than oversight. Empirical evaluations highlight the need for robust validation to mitigate errors from biases or incomplete training, ensuring decisions align with operational intent.

Categories and Examples

Defensive Autonomous Systems

Defensive autonomous systems encompass weapon platforms designed to protect fixed installations, vehicles, or naval assets by independently detecting, evaluating, and neutralizing incoming threats, such as missiles, drones, small boats, or intruders, without requiring real-time human intervention for target engagement. These systems prioritize rapid response in high-threat environments where human reaction times would be insufficient, relying on integrated sensors like radar, thermal imaging, and laser rangefinders to perform search, track, and fire functions. Unlike offensive systems that seek out distant targets, defensive variants operate within predefined perimeters or engagement zones, activating only upon verified threat detection to minimize false positives. A prominent example is the Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS), developed by and now produced by , which has been deployed on U.S. warships since 1980 to counter anti-ship missiles, low-flying , and asymmetric threats like small surface vessels. The system integrates a 20mm Gatling gun with a Ku-band for continuous 360-degree surveillance, capable of autonomously acquiring targets at ranges up to 2 kilometers, tracking them at speeds exceeding Mach 2, and firing up to 4,500 rounds per minute until the threat is destroyed or exits the zone. Over 900 units have been installed across more than 20 U.S. and allied navies, with combat-proven engagements including the neutralization of Iraqi missiles during in 1988 and Silkworm missiles in 1991. Land-based variants, such as the U.S. Army's system, extend this capability to counter rockets, artillery, and mortars, demonstrating operational reliability in environments like where manual defenses proved inadequate. Another key instance is South Korea's sentry gun, jointly developed by (formerly Samsung Techwin) and , and deployed along the (DMZ) since approximately 2010 to deter North Korean incursions. Equipped with a 5.56mm or 12.7mm , thermal cameras, and pattern-recognizing software, the can autonomously identify human or vehicle targets up to 3 kilometers away in all weather conditions, issue audio warnings, and engage with precision fire if the threat persists, though operators can override via remote link. At least 100 units guard the 248-kilometer , enhancing surveillance in rugged terrain where manned patrols face high risks, and the system's development addressed the need for persistent, fatigue-free monitoring amid ongoing tensions. These systems illustrate the tactical emphasis on defensive , where algorithmic —based on predefined criteria like , , and —enables sub-second responses unattainable by humans, though they incorporate fail-safes like thresholds to prevent erroneous lethal actions. Empirical from deployments show reduced collateral risks compared to unguided defenses, as sensors discriminate between threats and non-threats with error rates below 1% in controlled tests, yet vulnerabilities to spoofing or environmental interference persist, prompting ongoing upgrades in for target classification.

Offensive and Loitering Munitions

Loitering munitions, also known as or suicide drones, represent a category of offensive lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) designed to over a designated area, autonomously detect and engage using onboard sensors and algorithms before self-destructing upon impact. These systems integrate , sensing, and payloads, enabling extended flight times—often hours—while searching for high-value without continuous human input once launched. Unlike traditional missiles, their reusability if not detonated and ability to abort missions in some models distinguish them, though many are expendable by design. Prominent examples include the Israeli Harop loitering munition developed by , which features a 9-hour and electro-optic seekers for autonomous in the absence of prior intelligence, primarily used for suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) by homing on emissions. Similarly, the Turkish STM Kargu-2 drone employs for real-time target identification and can execute fully autonomous attacks, with swarm capabilities for coordinated strikes. In a reported deployment during the 2020 Libyan conflict, Kargu-2 units allegedly operated in autonomous mode to hunt and engage retreating forces, marking a potential first instance of a LAWS inflicting fatalities without direct human targeting, as noted in a panel report. These munitions enhance offensive operations by providing persistent and precision strikes against time-sensitive or mobile targets, such as command centers or armored vehicles, often in GPS-denied environments through inertial and AI-driven decision-making. The U.S. series, including the man-portable Switchblade 300 with a 15-minute loiter time and 10 km range, supports semi-autonomous modes where operators confirm targets via video feed, though upgrades incorporate greater AI for and evasion. Deployments in conflicts like have demonstrated their role in urban and , where loitering allows for on-demand response, though full remains constrained by requiring human oversight in U.S. systems. Critics, including UN experts, highlight risks of erroneous engagements due to algorithmic limitations in distinguishing combatants from civilians.

Real-World Deployments and Case Studies

In March 2020, during the Libyan civil war, Turkish-manufactured , produced by STM, were deployed by forces aligned with the against retreating troops affiliated with General . A Panel of Experts report documented that these loitering munitions, capable of autonomous navigation and target engagement via onboard AI, reportedly "hunted down" and attacked human targets without direct human control in some instances. The features for and can operate in swarms, switching between manual and fully autonomous modes, with a reported range of 10 kilometers and endurance of 30 minutes. This incident marked the first documented potential use of lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) against human combatants in active conflict, raising questions about compliance with , though the exact level of human oversight remains disputed due to limited verification. The Kargu-2's deployment in highlighted operational capabilities in dynamic environments, where the drones used pre-programmed target profiles to identify and engage fighters based on visual and thermal signatures. Post-incident analysis by the UN noted the allowed for independent selection and engagement after activation, distinguishing them from remotely piloted drones. Turkish officials have emphasized safeguards, but the UN findings suggest instances of full autonomy, with the drones programmed to prioritize moving targets matching combatant profiles. This case underscores the transition from semi-autonomous munitions to systems with greater target discrimination via AI, though empirical data on engagement accuracy is scarce, limited to classified military assessments and secondary reporting. In the 2020 , extensively deployed Israeli Harop loitering munitions alongside Turkish Bayraktar TB2 drones, contributing to the destruction of over 200 Armenian armored vehicles and pieces. The Harop, a man-portable drone with a 200-kilometer range and nine-hour loiter time, operates autonomously in its terminal phase after human-launched targeting data, using electro-optical sensors to detect and strike radar emissions or visual signatures without further intervention. While not fully autonomous in initial target selection—relying on pre-designated zones or human cues—these systems demonstrated lethality, with video evidence showing independent homing on mobile threats. forces reported Harop effectiveness in suppressing air defenses, achieving a reported 80-90% success rate in engagements, though Armenian countermeasures like electronic jamming reduced overall impact in later phases. This deployment illustrated LAWS precursors in , blending human oversight with autonomous execution, but fell short of independent target profiling in unstructured environments. Defensive LAWS have seen routine deployment by multiple militaries, including the U.S. Navy's Close-In Weapon System (CIWS), operational since 1980 and upgraded with autonomous fire control against incoming missiles and . The uses radar-guided 20mm Gatling guns to detect, track, and engage threats at speeds up to 4,500 rounds per minute without human input once activated, with over 100 systems deployed across U.S. and allied vessels. Similar systems, like South Korea's Super aEgis II automated turret along the DMZ since 2010, feature AI-driven detection of human intruders via thermal imaging and can fire autonomously in response to predefined threats, though set to require human confirmation for lethal force in practice. These cases represent established, low-controversy applications focused on threat interception rather than proactive targeting, with billions of operational hours logged without reported erroneous engagements against non-threats.

Military Advantages and Strategic Benefits

Enhanced Operational Efficiency and Force Multiplication

![STM Kargu loitering munition][float-right] Lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) enhance by enabling continuous surveillance and engagement without human fatigue or physiological limitations, allowing for persistent operations over extended periods. munitions, a key category of LAWS, provide advantages such as faster reaction times, area persistence, and selective targeting, which outperform traditional munitions in dynamic battlefields. These systems reduce logistical burdens associated with human operators, including sustenance and medical support, thereby streamlining and enabling smaller forces to maintain high readiness levels. Force multiplication arises from the scalability of LAWS, particularly through swarm tactics where multiple units coordinate autonomously to overwhelm adversaries. Autonomous swarms execute diverse missions with minimal support infrastructure, leveraging AI for distributed that mimics unified command structures. In practice, systems like the Turkish Kargu-2 drone have demonstrated this in in 2020, where autonomous operations "hunted down" retreating forces with high effectiveness, amplifying the impact of limited deployers. Such capabilities allow a single operator or small team to control swarms, effectively multiplying combat power by factors exceeding traditional manned units, as groups of LAWS can synchronize actions akin to a single entity. Overall, these efficiencies stem from LAWS' expendability and lower per-unit costs compared to manned platforms, facilitating mass deployment without proportional increases in personnel risks or expenses. For instance, loitering munitions engage time-sensitive targets cost-effectively, preserving higher-value assets for strategic roles. This supports by integrating LAWS into layered defense and offense strategies, where autonomous elements handle routine or high-volume tasks, freeing human resources for complex decision-making.

Minimizing Risks to Human Operators

Lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) minimize risks to operators by enabling the execution of high-threat missions without requiring personnel to be physically present in the operational environment. Once deployed or activated, these systems can independently identify, select, and engage targets, thereby eliminating the need for operators to expose themselves to enemy fire, improvised explosive devices, or other hazards. This capability has been highlighted in U.S. military analyses as a key advantage, allowing forces to neutralize threats remotely from secure locations, such as command centers or distant bases. In practice, systems like loitering munitions exemplify this risk reduction; for instance, the U.S. , a man-portable drone that can autonomously loiter and strike targets after launch, permits soldiers to engage adversaries without advancing into contested areas. Similarly, the Turkish quadcopter, deployed in as early as 2020, operates with onboard AI for target recognition and engagement, sparing operators from piloting vulnerable manned or ground vehicles. U.S. Department of Defense policy under Directive 3000.09, updated in 2023, mandates that autonomous systems incorporate safeguards to allow operator override while prioritizing designs that enhance safety by distancing humans from harm. Empirical evidence from unmanned systems deployments, which inform LAWS development, demonstrates tangible casualty reductions; during Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, the proliferation of unmanned ground and aerial vehicles correlated with decreased U.S. troop exposure to roadside bombs, contributing to a shift where machines absorbed risks previously borne by soldiers. By 2018, the U.S. Army had integrated over 7,000 robotic systems for tasks like route clearance and perimeter defense, explicitly to minimize personnel risks in . This approach not only preserves operator lives but also sustains operational tempo without the psychological toll of direct combat exposure.

Superior Precision Compared to Human-Controlled Systems

Autonomous weapon systems can achieve superior targeting precision by leveraging algorithms that process vast sensor data volumes without human limitations such as cognitive overload or sensory distortion, enabling more accurate object identification and engagement decisions. Machine learning models in these systems demonstrate visual recognition accuracies of 83-85 percent in complex environments, outperforming human operators under stress where error rates increase due to fatigue and emotional factors. For instance, the U.S. Counter-Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar (C-RAM) system automates intercepts with enhanced precision to distinguish threats from friendly assets, reducing fratricide risks that human verification alone might exacerbate in high-tempo scenarios. Unlike human operators, who experience performance degradation from prolonged operations—evidenced by studies showing mental fatigue impairs and marksmanship—autonomous systems maintain consistent accuracy across extended engagements without decrement. AI-driven targeting integrates real-time environmental variables like and , yielding up to 70 percent faster processing cycles for target nomination and assignment compared to manual methods reliant on operator judgment. This capability minimizes potential by enabling precise discrimination between combatants and non-combatants, as algorithms avoid human biases like over-reliance on incomplete visual cues. Proponents, including former U.S. Department of Defense officials, argue this extends to lethal systems, potentially lowering civilian casualties through unerring adherence to predefined . In tactical applications, such as AI-assisted , systems like the U.S. Army's Tactical Intelligence Targeting Access Node (TITAN) enhance human operators by automating for precise strikes, reducing errors in dynamic battlefields where humans alone falter under . Empirical parallels from non-lethal autonomous defenses, including rapid threat neutralization without fatigue-induced delays, support claims that full in offensive munitions could similarly outperform remote human piloting, which suffers from latency and operator endurance limits. However, these advantages hinge on robust validation, as unproven models risk overconfidence in edge cases beyond training data. Overall, the elimination of positions autonomous systems for inherently more reliable precision in force-on-force engagements.

Potential Risks and Technical Challenges

Algorithmic Errors and Unpredictability

Algorithmic errors in lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) arise primarily from limitations in algorithms, including biases embedded in training datasets that lead to systematic misidentifications of targets. For instance, incomplete or skewed data can result in false positives, where non-combatants or neutral objects are erroneously classified as threats, as documented in analyses of AI targeting systems that highlight risks from narrow data selection and programmer influences. Such errors are exacerbated in dynamic environments, where algorithms trained on controlled simulations fail to generalize, potentially violating principles of distinction under . Unpredictability stems from the "" nature of advanced neural networks, where complex interactions between algorithms and real-time inputs produce emergent behaviors that even developers cannot fully anticipate or explain. Military AI systems, reliant on for target selection, exhibit this opacity, as interactions with unpredictable operational contexts—such as variable lighting, , or electronic interference—can yield outputs diverging from intended logic. Studies on AI decision support for targeting indicate that such systems may amplify errors through over-reliance on probabilistic models, with false negatives (missing actual threats) or positives occurring due to unmodeled variables, as seen in broader AI applications like facial recognition, where error rates for certain demographics exceed 30% in uncontrolled settings. Empirical evidence from AI testing underscores these vulnerabilities; for example, simulations of autonomous drones have shown misclassification rates increasing in novel scenarios, with one review noting that minimizing false positives requires extensive diversity, yet battlefield novelty often overwhelms this, leading to lethal mistakes without human intervention. While proponents argue that iterative training mitigates risks, reveals that algorithmic drift—where models degrade over time due to shifting distributions—remains a persistent challenge, as evidenced by documented failures in non-military AI systems adapted for defense. These factors collectively heighten the potential for unintended escalations, as unpredictable error propagation in swarms or networked LAWS could cascade into disproportionate engagements.

Vulnerability to Adversarial Attacks and Proliferation

Lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) are susceptible to adversarial attacks that exploit weaknesses in their artificial intelligence components, such as machine learning models used for target identification and decision-making. Adversarial examples, which are subtly modified inputs designed to deceive AI classifiers, can cause systems to misidentify legitimate threats or non-threats, as demonstrated in assessments of electro-optical detection systems where perturbations invisible to humans lead to false positives or negatives. For instance, physical adversarial perturbations, like patterned camouflage or decoy objects, have been shown to evade drone-based object detectors in simulated military environments. These vulnerabilities arise from the brittleness of neural networks, which perform poorly outside their training distributions, amplifying risks in dynamic battlefield conditions. Cyber operations further compound these risks, enabling adversaries to compromise LAWS through data poisoning, spoofing, or direct network intrusions. Reports on in motion highlight how attackers can inject malicious during or operation, altering targeting logic without physical access, as seen in vulnerabilities affecting and control loops. Adversarial policies, such as deploying decoy drones exhibiting erratic behaviors, can confuse algorithms in swarming systems, leading to operational failures or unintended engagements. Electronic warfare techniques, including jamming or GPS spoofing, remain effective against semi-autonomous precursors and extend to fully autonomous variants reliant on similar and communication protocols, underscoring the need for robust countermeasures like adversarial , though these increase computational demands and may not fully mitigate real-world exploits. Proliferation of LAWS poses significant security challenges due to their potential for low-cost replication using commercial-off-the-shelf components and open-source AI frameworks, facilitating access by non-state actors. Unlike conventional arms requiring extensive industrial bases, autonomous systems can be assembled from inexpensive drones and basic kits, as evidenced by the rapid adaptation of munitions in conflicts like , where non-state groups have modified systems for independent targeting. This democratizes lethal technology, heightening risks of misuse in or , with analyses indicating that such weapons' relative fragility does not deter proliferation but rather accelerates it through iterative improvements by rogue entities. International efforts to restrict development face enforcement hurdles, as technological diffusion via dual-use software and hardware evades export controls, potentially leading to an uncontrolled spread that undermines strategic stability.

Ethical Considerations

Human Dignity and Moral Accountability

Critics of lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) contend that such technologies undermine by delegating life-and-death decisions to algorithms incapable of moral judgment or , thereby treating human targets as mere objects within computational processes rather than beings with intrinsic worth. This perspective draws on , emphasizing that dignity requires recognition of human autonomy and rationality in lethal contexts, which machines cannot provide; as philosopher Peter Asaro argued in 2012, "As a matter of the preservation of human morality, , , and law we cannot accept an automated system making the decision to take a human life." Empirical analyses highlight risks of , where LAWS reduce combatants and civilians to data patterns, potentially eroding the ethical restraint imposed by human involvement in warfare. Proponents of restricted LAWS deployment counter that dignity violations are not inherent if systems adhere to principles like and , potentially enhancing respect for life through superior precision over error-prone human operators. However, this view faces scrutiny for assuming reliable algorithmic fidelity, given documented cases of AI misclassification in non-lethal applications, such as facial recognition errors exceeding 10% in certain datasets as of 2022. Philosophers like Gregory Reichberg argue that machine lethal force debases akin to treating humans as animals, stripping warfare of the human essential to . On moral accountability, LAWS introduce a "responsibility gap" wherein autonomous decisions evade attribution to specific humans, complicating for unlawful killings and forward-looking improvements in conduct. Philosopher Anne Gerdes posited in 2018 that delegating lethal authority to LAWS creates an unacceptable gap, as programmers bear liability for design flaws but not prospective control over unpredictable runtime behaviors, evidenced by AI "" opacity in decision trees. This gap persists even with oversight layers, as technical access to logs, operator , and frameworks fail to fully bridge it when autonomy precludes real-time human veto, per analyses of socio-technical limitations. Such accountability deficits risk , where commanders evade culpability for systemic errors, contrasting with human-operated systems where individual soldiers face prosecution under frameworks like the , as seen in over 100 cases since 2002 involving direct human agency in atrocities. Critics argue this corrosion of agency incentivizes proliferation of flawed systems, amplifying civilian risks without commensurate ethical safeguards, though no fully autonomous lethal deployments have occurred as of 2025 to empirically test these dynamics.

Comparative Analysis with Human Decision-Making Flaws

Human operators in frequently exhibit impairments due to physiological and psychological factors. alone can elevate error rates significantly; for instance, cognitive induced prior to marksmanship tasks increased soldiers' commission errors—firing at non-threats—by 33% compared to rested conditions. Stress and compound these issues, degrading cognitive performance and reaction times, as evidenced by studies showing acute battle stress impairs shooting accuracy and decision speed during simulated overnight . Emotional responses, such as or , further distort threat assessment, leading to hesitation or overreaction absent in programmed systems. Friendly fire incidents underscore these vulnerabilities, often stemming from misidentification under duress rather than technical failures. In the 1991 , friendly fire accounted for approximately 17% of U.S. battle casualties, with misperception of targets as hostile being a primary cause. Broader analyses of modern conflicts estimate friendly fire contributes 13-23% of combat deaths for U.S. forces, attributable to human factors like fatigue-induced lapses in and communication breakdowns amid chaos. Such errors persist despite training, as soldiers under prolonged exertion ignore incoming data or fail to integrate it effectively, negating advanced sensor advantages. Cognitive biases exacerbate these flaws, systematically skewing judgments. Overconfidence bias leads commanders to overestimate success probabilities, while anchoring fixates decisions on initial flawed , as seen in historical operations where premature commitments ignored contradictory evidence. prioritizes recent or vivid events over comprehensive data, fostering illusory correlations in threat evaluation. These heuristics, adaptive in low-stakes environments, prove maladaptive in warfare's high-uncertainty context, where they amplify errors in target discrimination and force allocation. Proponents of lethal autonomous weapons contend these systems mitigate such human frailties by executing predefined rules without emotional interference or exhaustion, enabling faster processing of for precise engagements. Unlike fatigued operators, autonomous platforms maintain consistent performance over extended operations, potentially lowering collateral risks through unclouded . However, this comparison highlights not equivalence but a : while s err via subjective lapses, machines depend on algorithmic fidelity, raising questions about irreplaceable intuition in ambiguous scenarios like distinguishing combatants from civilians in dynamic urban settings. Empirical on errors thus informs ethical debates, suggesting could reduce predictable failure modes if programmed to exceed baseline .

Compliance with International Humanitarian Law

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), codified in the Geneva Conventions and customary international law, applies fully to all weapons systems, including lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS), requiring adherence to core principles such as distinction between combatants and civilians, proportionality of attacks, and precautions in attack. States must conduct legal reviews of new weapons under Article 36 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions to assess IHL compliance prior to development or acquisition, evaluating whether LAWS can reliably distinguish targets and apply force proportionally in dynamic environments. Proponents of LAWS argue that advanced sensors, algorithms, and can enhance compliance with distinction by processing data faster and more accurately than humans, reducing errors from fatigue, stress, or , as evidenced in simulations where autonomous systems demonstrated superior target identification in complex scenarios. For proportionality, which demands weighing anticipated civilian harm against concrete military advantage, programmable could embed thresholds to abort attacks if exceeds limits, potentially outperforming human operators prone to overreaction in high-stakes situations. However, critics, including the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), contend that LAWS may inherently fail these principles due to algorithmic unpredictability in novel contexts, where adaptations could lead to misinterpretations of civilian presence or value-based judgments beyond binary programming. The principle of precautions requires verifiable human oversight in meaningful ways, such as setting operational parameters or intervention capabilities, to ensure LAWS do not engage without real-time assessment of changing circumstances like human shields or surrendering fighters, which static algorithms might overlook. reports emphasize that LAWS must not create gaps, with commanders retaining responsibility for programming and deployment decisions, though full raises questions about meaningful control when systems self-modify post-deployment. Empirical tests, such as those by militaries, show current semi-autonomous systems like loitering munitions can comply in predefined scenarios, but scaling to fully lethal without risks violations in fluid , where contextual nuances defy exhaustive pre-programming. No international treaty prohibits LAWS outright as of , but resolutions urge states to refrain from deployment if IHL compliance cannot be assured, highlighting ongoing debates over whether technological safeguards suffice or if prohibitions on certain unpredictable variants are needed.

National Policies, Including US Directives

The (DoD) formalized its approach to autonomous weapon systems through Directive 3000.09, initially issued on November 21, 2012, and updated on January 25, 2023. The directive establishes policy for the development, acquisition, and fielding of such systems, emphasizing that autonomous and semi-autonomous weapon systems must be designed to allow commanders and operators to exercise appropriate levels of human judgment over the . It mandates rigorous safety testing, risk assessments, and senior-level reviews for systems capable of selecting and engaging targets without further human intervention, but does not prohibit fully autonomous lethal capabilities outright, provided they comply with applicable laws, including . The 2023 update reinforces these requirements without introducing a categorical ban or mandatory real-time control, focusing instead on minimizing failures and ensuring accountability through human oversight in authorization and operation. Among other nations, the maintains a policy opposing lethal autonomous weapon systems that lack meaningful and context-appropriate human involvement, as outlined in its 2022 Defence Strategy. The UK strategy commits to human accountability throughout the lifecycle of AI-enabled systems and supports international discussions under the , but rejects preemptive legally binding prohibitions, arguing that existing suffices for governance. Russia has articulated opposition to any international legally binding instrument restricting lethal autonomous weapon systems, emphasizing that human control can be achieved through non-real-time means such as pre-programming and ethical guidelines rather than direct intervention. Russian doctrine prioritizes rapid development of autonomous capabilities, with plans for fully autonomous military systems by 2035, and views bans as impediments to technological parity with adversaries. , while advocating classification of autonomous systems into "unacceptable" and "acceptable" categories for potential prohibitions on the former, has abstained from resolutions urging restrictions and continues aggressive pursuit of AI-integrated weapons without a domestic ban. employs advanced autonomous defensive systems but abstains from supportive votes on restrictive UN resolutions, maintaining that international law applies without need for new prohibitions and rejecting characterizations of such systems as fully independent decision-makers. Few other states have codified national policies, with most positions expressed in multilateral forums rather than domestic directives.

International Negotiations and Resolutions

Negotiations on lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) have taken place primarily under the (CCW), through its Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on in the area of LAWS, established as a forum for discussing definitions, characteristics, and potential regulatory measures since 2014. The GGE convenes annually in , with sessions in 2025 held from March 3–7 and September 1–5, focusing on formulating elements for a possible legally binding instrument, including prohibitions on systems lacking meaningful human control; however, consensus has consistently eluded the group due to opposition from states such as , the , and , which argue that preemptive bans could hinder technological development and without addressing definitional ambiguities. In September 2025, the GGE reviewed a rolling text on potential elements, with 42 states expressing readiness to commence negotiations on a binding instrument, yet progress stalled under CCW's consensus rule, which allows a minority of objecting parties—often major military powers—to block advancements, resulting in no mandate for formal talks by the session's end. This pattern reflects broader divisions: over 70 states, primarily from , , and some European nations, advocate for outright prohibitions, while proponents of regulation without bans emphasize compliance with through human oversight rather than . Parallel efforts in the UN have produced non-binding resolutions urging accelerated action. Resolution 78/241, adopted on December 22, 2023, called for addressing LAWS risks under . This was followed by Resolution 79/62 on December 2, 2024, which passed with 166 votes in favor, 3 against (, , and ), and 15 abstentions, mandating informal consultations on May 12–13, 2025, in New York to broaden participation beyond CCW states and explore complementarity with ongoing GGE work. Earlier, on November 5, 2024, the First Committee adopted draft Resolution L.77 with 161 in favor, reinforcing calls for treaty negotiations amid warnings from UN Secretary-General in May 2025 for a global prohibition to preserve human control over lethal force. No legally binding international resolution or treaty on LAWS exists as of October 2025, with advocacy groups like the International Committee of the Red Cross and Human Rights Watch attributing delays to resistance from states possessing advanced autonomous systems, while critics of ban-focused campaigns argue such efforts overlook verifiable benefits like reduced collateral damage in precision targeting compared to human errors in conventional warfare. These negotiations highlight tensions between ethical imperatives for human accountability and pragmatic concerns over verifiable enforcement in an era of rapid AI proliferation, with over 120 states by mid-2025 endorsing starts to treaty talks yet facing entrenched opposition from powers prioritizing operational autonomy.

Debates on Governance

Arguments Against Bans from Military Perspectives

Military leaders and defense analysts argue that prohibiting lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) would undermine operational effectiveness by forgoing technologies that serve as force multipliers, enabling fewer personnel to achieve mission objectives with greater efficacy. Autonomous systems expand access to contested environments, operate at tempos exceeding human capabilities, and handle repetitive or hazardous tasks without risking lives, as outlined in the U.S. Department of Defense's Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap from 2007–2032. For instance, systems like explosive ordnance disposal robots cost approximately $230,000 compared to $850,000 annually per soldier, potentially yielding significant savings while minimizing personnel exposure to threats. A primary concern from military perspectives is the preservation of friendly forces, as LAWS remove humans from high-risk engagements, reducing casualties in dull, dirty, or dangerous operations such as prolonged or radiological . U.S. defense policy, per Department of Defense Directive 3000.09 updated in 2023, permits the development and fielding of such systems under strict oversight, requiring human judgment in force employment but allowing in select scenarios to enhance and reliability through rigorous testing. This approach counters ban proposals by emphasizing that can mitigate human errors induced by fatigue or stress, potentially lowering ethical lapses in targeting compared to stressed operators. Proponents highlight precision advantages, noting that LAWS process vast without or degradation, enabling faster, more accurate engagements that could reduce versus human-operated systems. In degraded communication environments, onboard autonomy ensures continued functionality, aligning with (IHL) by facilitating discrimination between combatants and civilians through real-time verification. The U.S. position, articulated in discussions, opposes preemptive bans, asserting that LAWS may improve IHL adherence via enhanced targeting accuracy and reduced unintended civilian harm relative to less precise munitions. From a strategic standpoint, bans are viewed as impractical due to verification challenges and non-compliance risks from adversaries like and , who continue LAWS development, potentially eroding U.S. advantages in high-intensity conflicts. Existing IHL frameworks suffice to prohibit unreliable or indiscriminate systems, obviating the need for categorical prohibitions that ignore operational necessities in future battlefields dominated by speed and swarms. Defense experts warn that halting innovation would cede ground in an AI arms competition, compromising deterrence and without verifiable mechanisms.

Pro-Ban Campaigns and Their Critiques

The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, a coalition of over 250 non-governmental organizations from more than 100 countries, was publicly launched in April 2013 to advocate for a preemptive international treaty prohibiting the development, production, and use of lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS), defined as those capable of selecting and engaging targets without meaningful human control. Co-founded by groups including Human Rights Watch and the International Committee for Robot Arms Control, the campaign has focused on lobbying within the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), where discussions on LAWS began informally in 2014 and evolved into a Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) by 2017. By 2020, the campaign had influenced statements from 97 countries, with 30 expressing support for a ban or new legally binding rules, though major powers like the United States, Russia, and China have resisted outright prohibitions. Key arguments include the inherent inability of LAWS to reliably distinguish combatants from civilians or assess proportionality under international humanitarian law (IHL), the erosion of moral accountability in warfare, and heightened risks of proliferation to non-state actors, potentially enabling low-cost, scalable attacks by terrorists. Other prominent organizations, such as and the , have echoed these concerns, emphasizing an "accountability gap" where no human operator could be held responsible for algorithm-driven errors, and warning of an that lowers barriers to conflict by removing human empathy from lethal decisions. The campaign draws parallels to successful treaties like the 1997 Mine Ban Convention, urging a similar humanitarian approach despite LAWS not yet being widely deployed. Proponents cite early prototypes, such as Turkey's Kargu-2 drone, which has been marketed for autonomous loitering munitions, as evidence of imminent dangers requiring immediate action. Critiques of these campaigns highlight their reliance on alarmist rhetoric, such as the term "killer robots," which former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work described in as unethical and immoral for conflating semi-autonomous systems with fully unpredictable machines, thereby stifling legitimate technological advancements that could enhance precision and reduce in targeting. Analysts argue that pro-ban efforts overestimate IHL compliance risks for LAWS while underestimating human decision-making flaws, such as fatigue or emotional bias, which empirical data from conflicts like and show contribute to the majority of civilian casualties—over 90% in some drone strikes—compared to potentially more consistent algorithmic judgments. Enforcement challenges are a recurring objection: historical bans on chemical weapons have failed to deter rogue actors like , suggesting a LAWS would disadvantage compliant states while adversaries like non-signatory powers advance unchecked, per assessments from defense think tanks. Furthermore, the campaigns' strategy within the CCW framework has been deemed ineffective, as it mirrors past successes like cluster munitions bans but ignores the dual-use nature of AI technologies and the lack of consensus among permanent UN Security Council members, leading to stalled negotiations despite over 30 GGE meetings by 2023. Critics from military and policy circles, including , contend that NGO-driven advocacy often prioritizes deontological ethics over consequentialist outcomes, neglecting how autonomy could minimize through faster, data-driven responses in dynamic battlefields, as simulated in U.S. Department of Defense exercises. This perspective underscores a in humanitarian organizations toward narratives that may not align with causal realities of deterrence and , potentially increasing net human suffering by prolonging conflicts. ![Rally on the steps of San Francisco City Hall, protesting against a vote to authorize police use of deadly force robots.][float-right]

Prospects for Regulation and International Agreements

Ongoing discussions on regulating lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) occur primarily within the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) framework, through the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on emerging technologies in LAWS. The GGE held sessions in Geneva from March 3–7 and September 1–5, 2025, focusing on applying international humanitarian law, ethical concerns, and potential normative frameworks, with its mandate extended until the CCW's Seventh Review Conference in 2026. In December 2024, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on LAWS with 166 votes in favor, urging states to address risks through enhanced compliance with and consideration of new legally binding instruments, though it stopped short of mandating negotiations for a treaty. This resolution reflects growing multilateral attention amid rapid AI advancements, but lacks enforcement mechanisms and faces implementation hurdles due to non-consensus . Major powers exhibit resistance to outright bans, favoring reliance on existing or non-binding guidelines over preemptive prohibitions. The opposes stigmatizing LAWS development, emphasizing human oversight and national policies like the 2020 Directive on Autonomy in Weapon Systems, while arguing that bans could cede technological advantages to adversaries. deems calls for bans premature, asserting no compelling evidence of unique risks beyond those of and vetoing stronger CCW measures. has expressed support for limiting fully autonomous lethal systems in principle but maintains strategic ambiguity, continuing domestic development without committing to verifiable restrictions that might constrain its military modernization. These divergent positions—ranging from prohibitionist stances by over 30 states and NGOs advocating a by , to "traditionalist" reliance on current by powers like the and —undermine consensus for binding agreements. No international explicitly prohibits LAWS as of October 2025, with experts citing geopolitical rivalries and dynamics as barriers to progress beyond voluntary restraints. Prospects for comprehensive regulation thus hinge on the CCW Review Conference, where a mandate remains possible but improbable without alignment among Permanent Five UN Security Council members, potentially resulting in protracted, incremental norms rather than enforceable prohibitions.

Future Implications

Advancements in artificial intelligence, machine learning algorithms, and sensor fusion have enabled lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) to perform target identification, tracking, and engagement with minimal human input, progressing from semi-autonomous operations to higher levels of independence. These developments include improved computer vision for distinguishing combatants from civilians under varying conditions and real-time decision-making capabilities powered by edge computing, reducing latency in dynamic battlefields. Military investments have accelerated this trajectory, with systems now capable of operating in swarms for coordinated strikes, as demonstrated in experimental programs integrating hundreds of low-cost drones. A notable example is the Turkish STM Kargu-2 loitering munition, a quadrotor drone equipped with autonomous navigation and facial recognition for target selection, which was reportedly deployed in Libya around 2020-2021, where it hunted and attacked human targets without direct operator control according to a United Nations report. While debates persist over the extent of its autonomy—primarily used for navigation rather than full targeting in some analyses—the system's design allows for swarm-mode operations and machine-learning-based threat assessment, marking an early integration of lethal autonomy in asymmetric warfare. Similarly, China's military has advanced drone swarm technologies, testing coordinated unmanned aerial vehicles for saturation attacks in potential Taiwan scenarios, emphasizing AI-driven collective intelligence to overwhelm defenses. In the United States, the Department of Defense's Replicator initiative, launched in August 2023, aims to field thousands of all-domain attritable autonomous systems by mid-2025, focusing on uncrewed platforms for dispersed combat power against peer adversaries like . These systems, including air and surface variants, incorporate collaborative autonomy software for mission coordination without constant human oversight, though U.S. policy mandates meaningful human control for lethal decisions as of late 2024. DARPA's Air Combat Evolution () program further pushes boundaries by developing AI pilots for dogfighting, transitioning from human-piloted simulations to autonomous aerial engagements. and have collaborated on AI-powered platforms, such as gun-mounted robot dogs for urban combat, enhancing ground-based autonomy. Integration trends reflect a shift toward attritable, scalable systems that embed into existing architectures, reducing personnel risks while amplifying . Swarming capabilities, where drones share data via mesh networks for emergent behaviors like adaptive targeting, are proliferating, with militaries prioritizing low-cost hardware over expensive single platforms to counter electronic warfare. The global market, projected to reach USD 44.52 billion by 2034, underscores this emphasis on AI-equipped units for tasks ranging from reconnaissance to precision strikes, driven by lessons from where autonomous elements have enhanced battlefield efficiency. However, full deployment of LAWS remains constrained by technical challenges in reliable and ethical safeguards, with most systems retaining for lethal actions.

Geopolitical Ramifications and Arms Race Dynamics

The development and potential deployment of lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) among major powers has intensified military competition, particularly between the , , and , raising concerns about destabilizing geopolitical shifts. U.S. Department of Defense Directive 3000.09, last updated in 2020 but reaffirmed in policy discussions through 2024, mandates human oversight for lethal engagements while permitting autonomous targeting in certain scenarios, reflecting a strategic push to integrate AI for operational efficiency amid peer competitions. , through its 2017 New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan, has accelerated military AI integration, including autonomous drones and swarm technologies, positioning LAWS as tools for maintaining regional dominance in scenarios like a contingency, despite public calls for human control in international forums. has operationalized systems with autonomous functions in since 2022, deploying loitering munitions like the KUB-BLA for target selection without real-time human input, and plans to produce millions of AI-enhanced drones by 2025 to offset manpower shortages. This competition mirrors historical arms races but accelerates due to AI's rapid iteration, potentially eroding mutual deterrence by enabling low-cost, scalable strikes that reduce human risk and lower conflict thresholds. In the , U.S.- rivalry over AI weaponry could alter power balances, with 's advances in like threatening U.S. naval superiority, while proliferation to allies or adversaries—evident in Russia's exports and 's Belt and Road tech transfers—amplifies escalation risks in hybrid conflicts. Russia's experience demonstrates how LAWS enable attritional warfare, prompting responses and straining alliance cohesion, as autonomous systems outpace human decision loops and invite miscalculation in flashpoints like the . Experts from think tanks like the Arms Control Association note that without binding international norms, this dynamic fosters a "" where defensive AI pursuits yield offensive capabilities, heightening global instability. Proliferation beyond state actors exacerbates ramifications, as LAWS' relative affordability—compared to manned platforms—enables non-state groups or rogue regimes to acquire variants, undermining conventional deterrence and complicating attribution in cyberattacks or border skirmishes. UN General Assembly Resolution 78/241, adopted December 2024 with 152 votes in favor, highlights widespread alarm over unregulated spread, yet major powers' resistance to bans preserves national flexibility, perpetuating the race. While some analyses question a full "arms race" narrative due to cooperative AI elements, empirical deployments in Ukraine and investment surges—U.S. allocating billions via the Replicator initiative for autonomous systems by 2025—underscore causal pressures for preemptive adoption to avoid strategic disadvantage. This trajectory risks normalizing machine-mediated lethality, altering alliances and forcing reallocations from human-centric forces to AI infrastructure, with long-term effects on great-power stability contingent on governance breakthroughs amid ongoing UN talks.

References

  1. https://www.esd.whs.mil/portals/54/documents/dd/issuances/dodd/300009p.pdf
  2. https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF11150/IF11150.10.pdf
  3. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/May-June-2017/Pros-and-Cons-of-Autonomous-Weapons-Systems/
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9399191/
  5. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/kargu-2-autonomous-attack-drone-legal-ethical/
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6774687/
  7. http://meetings.unoda.org/ccw/convention-on-certain-conventional-weapons-group-of-governmental-experts-on-lethal-autonomous-weapons-systems-2025
  8. https://warontherocks.com/2025/05/autonomous-weapon-systems-no-human-in-the-loop-required-and-other-myths-dispelled/
  9. https://www.war.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3278076/dod-announces-update-to-dod-directive-300009-autonomy-in-weapon-systems/
  10. https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/document/file_list/autonomous_weapon_systems_under_international_humanitarian_law.pdf
  11. https://www.belfercenter.org/what-are-autonomous-weapon-systems
  12. https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/02/14/review-2023-us-policy-autonomy-weapons-systems
  13. https://news.usni.org/2023/05/16/defense-primer-u-s-policy-on-lethal-autonomous-weapon-systems-2
  14. https://www.dodmantech.mil/News/News-Display/Article/3278065/dod-updates-autonomy-in-weapons-system-directive/
  15. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1120843.pdf
  16. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11150
  17. https://www.nist.gov/document/alfus-bgpdf
  18. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240846567_Autonomy_levels_for_unmanned_systems_ALFUS_framework_An_update
  19. https://historyandpolicy.org/opinion-articles/articles/mines-the-original-autonomous-weapons-and-the-failure-of-early-20th-century/
  20. https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/ASW-51/ASW-15.html
  21. https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2017/october/sub-hunting-bloodhound
  22. https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/01/24/lethal-autonomy-a-short-history/
  23. https://www.navy.mil/resources/fact-files/display-factfiles/article/2167831/mk-15-phalanx-close-in-weapon-system-ciws/
  24. https://www.navylookout.com/last-ditch-defence-the-phalanx-close-in-weapon-system-in-focus/
  25. https://www.iai.co.il/p/harop
  26. https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/military-balance/2024/01/europe-comes-full-circle-on-loitering-munitions/
  27. https://www.npr.org/2021/06/01/1002196245/a-u-n-report-suggests-libya-saw-the-first-battlefield-killing-by-an-autonomous-d
  28. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/03/world/africa/libya-drone.html
  29. https://www.darpa.mil/about/innovation-timeline
  30. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10030838/
  31. https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2024/07/12/war-artificial-intelligence-and-the-future-of-conflict/
  32. https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/NISEA-AI-Emerging-Tech-and-LAWS-Perspectives-in-Asia.pdf
  33. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID5088972_code7207861.pdf?abstractid=5088972&mirid=1
  34. https://seclgroup.com/adding-ai-and-ml-to-military-drones-for-target-recognition/
  35. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352711023001930
  36. https://news.mit.edu/2025/ai-enabled-control-system-helps-autonomous-drones-uncertain-environments-0609
  37. https://futureoflife.org/aws/real-life-technologies-that-prove-autonomous-weapons-are-already-here/
  38. https://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/artificial-intelligence-reinforcements
  39. https://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/air-combat-evolution
  40. https://www.csis.org/analysis/darpa-perspective-ai-and-autonomy-dod
  41. https://armscontrolcenter.org/fact-sheet-autonomous-weapons/
  42. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/what-you-need-know-about-autonomous-weapons
  43. https://sciencepolicyreview.org/wp-content/uploads/securepdfs/2022/08/MITSPR-v3-191618003019.pdf
  44. https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2024-08/laws.pdf
  45. https://automatedresearch.org/weapon/stm-kargu-loitering-munition/
  46. https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/was-a-flying-killer-robot-used-in-libya-quite-possibly/
  47. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15027570.2024.2366094
  48. https://www.hrw.org/report/2025/04/28/hazard-human-rights/autonomous-weapons-systems-and-digital-decision-making
  49. https://disarmament.unoda.org/en/our-work/emerging-challenges/lethal-autonomous-weapon-systems
  50. https://www.rtx.com/raytheon/what-we-do/sea/phalanx-close-in-weapon-system
  51. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Phalanx.php
  52. https://www.cnas.org/publications/commentary/the-foreign-policy-essay-the-south-korean-sentry-a-killer-robot-to-prevent-war
  53. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3001181_A_Robotic_Sentry_For_Korea%27s_Demilitarized_Zone
  54. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/loitering-munitions-preview-the-autonomous-future-of-warfare/
  55. https://warontherocks.com/2022/04/loitering-munitions-in-ukraine-and-beyond/
  56. https://www.stm.com.tr/en/kargu-autonomous-tactical-multi-rotor-attack-uav
  57. https://trendsresearch.org/insight/governing-lethal-autonomous-weapons-the-future-of-warfare-and-military-ai/
  58. https://www.avinc.com/lms/switchblade
  59. https://www.csis.org/analysis/air-and-missile-war-nagorno-karabakh-lessons-future-strike-and-defense
  60. https://www.militarystrategymagazine.com/article/drones-in-the-nagorno-karabakh-war-analyzing-the-data/
  61. https://aviationanddefensemarketreports.com/the-future-of-precision-warfare-the-impact-of-loitering-munitions/
  62. https://www.icrc.org/en/download/file/1707/4221-002-autonomous-weapons-systems-full-report.pdf
  63. https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2023/12/13/industry-perspective-autonomous-swarm-drones-new-face-of--warfare
  64. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2278852-drones-may-have-attacked-humans-fully-autonomously-for-the-first-time/
  65. https://www.gwlr.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/83-Geo-Wash-L-Rev-176.pdf
  66. https://market.us/report/loitering-munition-market/
  67. https://thehyperstack.com/blog/autonomous-weapons-systems-future-military-operations/
  68. https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R45392/R45392.1.pdf
  69. https://product.house/ai-and-military-robotics-improving-efficiency-and-reducing-risk-to-soldiers/
  70. https://sites.temple.edu/ticlj/files/2017/02/30.1.Scharre-TICLJ.pdf
  71. https://www.lineofdeparture.army.mil/Portals/144/PDF/Journals/Field-Artillery/FA-2024-Issue-1/enhancing-tactical-level-targeting.pdf
  72. https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2024-12/background_paper_bias_in_military_ai_0.pdf
  73. https://autonomousweapons.org/the-risks/
  74. https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2024/09/04/the-risks-and-inefficacies-of-ai-systems-in-military-targeting-support/
  75. https://www.icrc.org/en/download/file/102852/autonomy_artificial_intelligence_and_robotics.pdf
  76. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA800/RRA866-1/RAND_RRA866-1.pdf
  77. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/computer-science/articles/10.3389/fcomp.2024.1349206/pdf
  78. https://www.japcc.org/essays/adversarial-machine-learning/
  79. https://unidir.org/files/publication/pdfs/autonomous-weapon-systems-and-cyber-operations-en-690.pdf
  80. https://www.foi.se/en/foi/news-and-pressroom/news/2023-08-22-how-military-ai-systems-can-be-attacked-and-misled.html
  81. https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/occasional-papers/assessing-autonomous-weapons-proliferation-risk
  82. https://www.inss.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/liran-antebi.pdf
  83. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/big-data/articles/10.3389/fdata.2022.999293/full
  84. http://www.davidpublisher.com/Public/uploads/Contribute/5b9b751b8583b.pdf
  85. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11023-020-09532-9
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5599781/
  87. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.925157/full
  88. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1994/june/friendly-fire-facts-myths-and-misperceptions
  89. https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/fatal-error-inspired-plan-to-reduce-friendly-fire/
  90. https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2600&context=parameters
  91. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20120630MC_art011.pdf
  92. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA493560.pdf
  93. https://www.icrc.org/en/download/file/69961/icrc_ethics_and_autonomous_weapon_systems_report_3_april_2018.pdf
  94. https://geneva.usmission.gov/2021/08/05/u-s-statement-at-the-gge-on-laws-agenda-item-5e/
  95. https://www.sipri.org/publications/2021/policy-reports/autonomous-weapon-systems-and-international-humanitarian-law-identifying-limits-and-required-type
  96. https://unidir.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/UNIDIR_The_Interpretation_and_Application_of_International_Humanitarian_Law_Lethal_Autonomous_Weapon_Systems.pdf
  97. https://ogc.osd.mil/Portals/99/Law%20of%20War/Practice%20Documents/US%20Working%20Paper%20-%20Humanitarian%20benefits%20of%20emerging%20technologies%20in%20the%20area%20of%20LAWS%20-%20CCW_GGE.1_2018_WP.4_E.pdf
  98. https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/ils/vol90/iss1/1/
  99. https://www.japcc.org/articles/autonomous-weapon-systems-in-international-humanitarian-law/
  100. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2713&context=jil
  101. https://academic.oup.com/jcsl/article/27/1/1/6513626
  102. https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n24/154/32/pdf/n2415432.pdf
  103. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD1120843.pdf
  104. https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/79/62
  105. https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/29/issue/1
  106. https://www.csis.org/analysis/dod-updating-its-decade-old-autonomous-weapons-policy-confusion-remains-widespread
  107. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62a9b1d1e90e07039e31b8cb/20220614-Ambitious_Safe_and_Responsible.pdf
  108. https://automatedresearch.org/news/state_position/united-kingdom/
  109. https://documents.unoda.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Ru-Commentaries-on-GGE-on-LAWS-guiding-principles1.pdf
  110. https://automatedresearch.org/news/state_position/russia/
  111. https://www.cna.org/our-media/newsletters/ai-and-autonomy-in-russia
  112. https://documents.unoda.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Working-Paper-of-the-Peoples-Republic-of-China-on-Lethal-Autonomous-Weapons-Systems%25EF%25BC%2588English%25EF%25BC%2589.pdf
  113. https://automatedresearch.org/news/state_position/china/
  114. https://docs-library.unoda.org/General_Assembly_First_Committee_-Seventy-Ninth_session_%282024%29/78-241-Israel-EN.pdf
  115. https://automatedresearch.org/news/state_position/israel/
  116. https://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/disarmament-fora/ccw/2025/laws
  117. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/protracted-debate-incremental-progress-unexpected-outcomes/
  118. https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/news/september-2025-gge-joint-statement/
  119. https://docs.un.org/en/a/res/79/62
  120. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2024-12/news/un-moves-expand-autonomous-weapons-discussions
  121. https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/news/161-states-vote-against-the-machine-at-the-un-general-assembly/
  122. https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/05/1163256
  123. https://www.icrc.org/en/statement/preserving-human-control-over-use-force-call-regulate-lethal-autonomous-weapon-systems
  124. https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/12/05/killer-robots-un-vote-should-spur-treaty-negotiations
  125. https://autonomousweapons.org/global-perspectives-on-regulation/
  126. https://ogc.osd.mil/Portals/99/Law%20of%20War/Practice%20Documents/US%20Working%20Paper%20-%20Humanitarian%20benefits%20of%20emerging%20technologies%20in%20the%20area%20of%20LAWS%20-%20CCW_GGE.1_2018_WP.4_E.pdf?ver=O0lg6BIxsFt57nrOuz3xHA%253D%253D
  127. https://www.cfr.org/blog/stop-stop-killer-robot-debate-why-we-need-artificial-intelligence-future-battlefields
  128. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/autonomous-weapons-are-the-moral-choice/
  129. https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/about-us/
  130. https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/08/10/stopping-killer-robots/country-positions-banning-fully-autonomous-weapons-and
  131. https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/08/21/heed-call/moral-and-legal-imperative-ban-killer-robots
  132. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2016-09/features/stopping-killer-robots-why-now-time-ban-autonomous-weapons-systems
  133. https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/
  134. https://breakingdefense.com/2019/08/campaign-to-stop-killer-robots-unethical-immoral-bob-work/
  135. https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/why-the-effort-ban-killer-robots-warfare-misguided
  136. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/1803/
  137. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13523260.2020.1771508
  138. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16544951.2025.2540131
  139. https://reachingcriticalwill.org/disarmament-fora/ccw/2025/laws
  140. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/08/understanding-the-global-debate-on-lethal-autonomous-weapons-systems-an-indian-perspective?lang=en
  141. https://www.cnas.org/publications/commentary/chinas-strategic-ambiguity-and-shifting-approach-to-lethal-autonomous-weapons-systems-1
  142. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/future-warfare-national-positions-governance-lethal-autonomous-weapons-systems/
  143. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576525006009
  144. https://ict4peace.org/activities/geneva-talks-on-autonomous-weapons-momentum-builds-but-challenges-remain/
  145. https://www.cna.org/our-media/indepth/2025/09/china-readies-drone-swarms-for-future-war
  146. https://www.cna.org/reports/2025/07/PRC-Concepts-for-UAV-Swarms-in-Future-Warfare.pdf
  147. https://www.diu.mil/replicator
  148. https://www.anduril.com/article/diu-selects-anduril-to-enable-collaborative-autonomy-for-replicator-systems/
  149. https://undark.org/2024/11/26/unleashed-autonomous-weapons/
  150. https://fsi.stanford.edu/sipr/content/lethal-autonomous-weapons-next-frontier-international-security-and-arms-control
  151. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/gt2040-home/gt2040-deeper-looks/future-of-the-battlefield
  152. https://dsm.forecastinternational.com/2025/01/21/drone-wars-developments-in-drone-swarm-technology/
  153. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2025/10/24/3172927/0/en/Military-Robot-Market-Size-is-Expected-to-Reach-USD-44-520-Million-by-2034-Growing-Adoption-of-Autonomous-Systems-to-Boost-Battlefield-Efficiency-and-Safety.html
  154. https://inss.ndu.edu/Media/News/Article/4306224/autonomous-artificial-intelligence-in-armed-conflict-toward-a-model-of-strategi/
  155. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/ai-weapons-in-chinas-military-innovation/
  156. https://automatedresearch.org/news/weapons-systems-with-autonomous-functions-used-in-ukraine/
  157. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a64826047/lethal-autonomous-weapons-race/
  158. https://www.cigionline.org/publications/us-china-tech-rivalry-convergent-technologies-in-autonomous-weapons-systems/
  159. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a64131751/ai-warfare/
  160. https://mwi.westpoint.edu/battlefield-drones-and-the-accelerating-autonomous-arms-race-in-ukraine/
  161. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2025-01/features/geopolitics-and-regulation-autonomous-weapons-systems
  162. https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n24/154/32/pdf/n2415432.pdf?OpenElement
  163. https://tnsr.org/2021/06/debunking-the-ai-arms-race-theory/
  164. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/society-equity/nations-meet-un-killer-robot-talks-regulation-lags-2025-05-12/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.