I have no issue with creation of such systems, they will come whether or not we do anything. The issue is as always, what will the other guy actually do. Then y

I have no issue with creation of such systems, they will come whether or not we do anything. The issue is as always, what will the other guy actually do. Then you get rogue actors. So in that train of thought I doubt seriously any treaty will prevent them from being developed and even deployed. Now they may actually become beneficial in the field as they could distinguish between friend or foe and needless to say losing one of these compared to a soldier is preferable if it makes the wrong choice (it wasn't friendly) What I would prefer to see is rules, by treaty or law, that prevents law enforcement agencies from implementing any automaton that can kill or otherwise harm. Any action where a robotic unit is employed to incapacitate or harm up to and including death should require a human operator with regards to law enforcement. I also see the great benefit to having this technology be employed in fire fighting, fire rescue, and disaster assistance. tl;dr there is no stopping the military from having these but there needs to be means to stop law enforcement