This is of course covering unmanned combat units. In the last few decades we have made major leaps forward in robotics and unmanned vehicles. Driverless cars are just now starting to appear. One question that can be raised however is the use of Robots in combat. Most modern drones and other such units require input from a human controller to operate on the battlefield in any capacity, South Korea has begun to set up auto turrets along the DMZ however.

On the one hand drones have been extremely useful; disarming bombs, exploring or operating in dangerous terrain, and reducing the risk overall to human operators. There have even been developments towards therapy robots designed to resemble adorable creatures like baby seals. This sort of stuff I am all for.

Science fiction is filled with stories about mankind abusing the ability to produce such weapons only for them to be turned against us either by another power or by the machines themselves. Science fiction has literally come up with over a hundred ways in which such a situation comes into being. Some may balk or wave off such considerations as stupid or foolish, but it remains a legitimate concern in my opinion.

There are also ethical concerns related to dehumanizing war. One of things that has arguably helped keep the major world powers from fighting one another is just the sheer loss of life that would be incured not only on eachother but in the combat area as civilians get caught up in the fighting. It is dangerously possible that is the risk of backlash against human casualties dimishes we will see an increase in armed conflict. War literally becomes a video game, with the sole addition being civilians being caught up in the middle of it all.

This is of course to say nothing of a potential rise in mercenary activity as anyone with access to drones might suddenly start hiring their little robot friends out to go and bomb the next door neighbors.

The question I raise is just how much power should we place in these sort of weapons?

5621213
I've always been of the belief that drones should only be a supplemental force and not a primary force. Even as AI tech improves, humanity will still be needed on the battlefield. I can see some roles, like fighters and bombers, going to remote controlled/semi-autonomous/autonomous drones (we already have AI controlled drones that can reliably beat human controlled ones in dogfight conditions) in addition to the roles you mentioned; but for on the ground or aboard ship? You need that human touch due to the number of variables.

There are also ethical concerns related to dehumanizing war

I completely agree with this.
To paraphrase A Taste of Armageddon, Death, destruction, disease, horror; that's what war is all about. It's what makes it a thing to be avoided. By making it so neat and so painless there would be no reason to stop.

5621213

There are also ethical concerns related to dehumanizing war. One of things that has arguably helped keep the major world powers from fighting one another is just the sheer loss of life that would be incured not only on eachother but in the combat area as civilians get caught up in the fighting.

That's what we said about TNT and gattling guns.

I mean I don't really know about the practical side, anything involving people is certainly "cooler" and in a sci-fi sense it has some actual stakes. Sure robotics is advanced and all but if they can't get Empire Total War to run on Windows Seven how are drones supposed to be reliable?

5621351
I'm hesitant to give an AI the power to kill in general.

5621624
And within fifty years of inventing the Gatling Gun we had World War I, followed by its sequel World War II electric buggaloo.

5621694
Thankfully we can now program a kind of morality into them. Tesla's self driving cars require you to take a sort of exam first so the car can react the way you think is right. Even if that means picking a 'lesser of two evils'.

And within fifty years of inventing the Gatling Gun we had World War I, followed by its sequel World War II electric buggaloo.

And it looks like World War III: War Hard With a Vengeance is in development hell.

5621624

That's what we said about TNT and gattling guns.

And you can't honestly say they were wrong there.

5621724 They were wrong.

TNT and gattling guns weren't so bad they stopped doing war did they.

5621792
No, but they certainly made it even more inhuman than it ever was. Technological advances (and people being too stupid to move past human wave tactics in the face of them) are credited in large part as being what made World War 1 so bloody. That no kind of consequence will people from actually having wars is a given. It's well-known that punishment isn't actually a deterrent in law, the risk of getting caught is.

5621720
I still against the idea of giving a machine the power to kill period. That is in general opening up Pandora's box for just about anything to go wrong. There should always be someone behind the trigger.