Autonomous weapons lower the political cost of war. When nations can wage conflict without risking soldiers' lives, the democratic check on military adventurism disappears. Wars become easier to start and harder to end.
Consider whether decisions to use lethal force should remain under human control and how a ban could work.
Up to 60 seconds. Preview before submitting.
Record up to 60 seconds. Preview your video before you submit it.
Autonomous weapons lower the political cost of war. When nations can wage conflict without risking soldiers' lives, the democratic check on military adventurism disappears. Wars become easier to start and harder to end.
Autonomous weapons fundamentally violate the principle that a human must be morally responsible for every decision to take a life. Delegating kill decisions to algorithms crosses a line that, once crossed, cannot be uncrossed. The UN Secretary-General has called them "morally repugnant."
We already use automated systems in defense — missile defense interceptors, naval Phalanx systems, and landmines all operate without human authorization for each engagement. The line between "automated" and "autonomous" is far less clear than ban advocates suggest.