I used to agree with the article's viewpoint wholeheartedly. It involved this romantic notion that the mutual risk shared by both parties in warfare served to a

I used to agree with the article's viewpoint wholeheartedly. It involved this romantic notion that the mutual risk shared by both parties in warfare served to act as a deterrent towards future conflict, thereby ensuring peace. Add robots and that mechanism is destroyed. Moreover, is something really worth fighting for if nations wouldn't otherwise have the will to commit human troops? Well, yes. Modern political reality is such that large military occupations for humanitarian purposes are incredibly unpopular, and suggesting the mere prospect of such operations is tantamount to political suicide. Bad actors know this dynamic, and they exploit it with knowledge that western countries will almost certainly not intervene, allowing them to operate with impunity. Recent history points to genocide in Rwanda and Darfur as being prime examples. Robotic infantry, built and deployed to any reasonable standard, tend to solve this problem. The article cites concerns over increased civilian casualties if we were to deploy autonomous weapons platforms. On the contrary, like self-driving cars, it's likely that machine control would result in safer outcomes. In the case of robotic infantry, you're talking sensors and weapons that far exceed human capability in their capacity to be surgical. Combined with the fact that self-preservation could easily take lower precedence to preserving civilian life, and it seems clear that the net result would be a decrease in civilian casualties. To be fair, the article's spirit likely was intended primarily in the context of aerial drones, and I admit turning drones into autonomous killing machines is almost certainly a bad idea, unless drones significantly ramp up their sensor capabilities and start using bullets instead of bombs. If autonomous robots with the authority to kill are what it takes to make genocide a thing of the past and bring social change to countries where women are still considered property, and where not subscribing to the mandated faith results in death, then so be it. Banning domestic use of such robots in developed countries would be a fantastic idea, however. Even any less-than-lethal forms.