This treatise only focuses on one point of view from two studies, and asks if killer robots are OK. But there are plenty of other philosophies and ethical/logi

This treatise only focuses on one point of view from two studies, and asks if killer robots are OK. But there are plenty of other philosophies and ethical/logical paths one can take. In particular the article doesn’t touch upon nonviolent resistance, which one can argue is more ethical than self defense. I also don’t agree that you can reduce war to a series of individuals protecting their right not to be killed and therefore war at scale is justified in a general sense. I do appreciate the mention of information asymmetry for conscription as a flaw in ethical standing by those who would wage war, but this is obvious since that’s how pretty much every war has ever been started. Machines designed to kill people don’t have any ethical escape route. They are by definition evil constructs. The creation and use of an evil construct is not justified in any ethical argument.