Two comments, one personal, one theoretical.Personally, as a geek and physics major turned military officer, specifically spending my last 18 months in the flee

Two comments, one personal, one theoretical.Personally, as a geek and physics major turned military officer, specifically spending my last 18 months in the fleet doing force protection planning and ops,now a father, 3rd year med student, and homeowner in New Orleans, I can't conceive of a war these warbots could win. They can only start and continue violence. They can't build homes, mend communities, teach children or care for the sick and injured. They can't stock shelves or forgive debts. These war bots appeal to young men who have not yet faced physical adversity &military & political leaders too far removed and too surrounded by military contractors. Would you want your family to face these machines? I disagree with the claim that force protection is a valid basis for bots. Thebots don'tprotect the troops. They continue violencethey can't stop. Every bomb dropped leaves more work for soldiers on the ground and increases the hostility of the local population toward those troops. Those troops are your friends, neighbors, sons and daughters. If code is law, what codable theoretical concept can society use to stop young men and the leaders of the military-industrial complex from killing us all in a scorched earth search for a technological solution to war? The concern most have expressed here boils down to moral hazard, the same concept employed to curb bailouts of housing speculators and big companies. In both the bot and bailout cases, moral hazard has been gradually removed from the decision-making process. In finance, computing power, a credible objective(profit), gimicks, and the failure of regulators to keep pace with their charges, made it possible for the actors to get into the problems they now face. In the military-industrial complex the case is more extreme:massive computing power, a credible objective (less danger to our troops (they thought)), and a complete abdication of regulatory responsibility, and exceptionally simple regulatory basis (can't get much simpler than the five bases of jus ad bellum). How to put lot more moral hazard back into the equations?