> “where ethical considerations are completely removed from battle” I’m surprised you say that. Having tired, squishy humans in a hot, cramped box fearing for

> “where ethical considerations are completely removed from battle” I’m surprised you say that. Having tired, squishy humans in a hot, cramped box fearing for their life is not exactly a guarantee of “ethical considerations”. Remotely controlled weaponry removes said humans from the immediate danger. It’s a lot easier to apply ethical considerations, when you can be certain a moment of hesitation won’t cause your death. Fully autonomous weaponry moves the ethical decision making even further up the chain. Where cold heads can do all the thinking beforehand. Now, don’t get me wrong: There is a lot of ills with remotely controlled/autonomous weaponry. Chiefly among them that it removes certain costs from the political calculus. Politicians fear the spectacle of their troops dying. This fear moderates their decision making. Removing this cost will make the world a worse place. But i would hardly call this an “ethical consideration”.