Fully Autonomous Weapons:
Questions and Answers
Human Rights Watch and
Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic
October 2013
Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and other technologies will soon make possible the
development of fully autonomous weapons, which would revolutionize the way wars are
fought. These weapons, unlike the current generation of armed drones, would be able to
select and engage targets without human intervention. Military officials in the United
States and other technologically advanced countries generally say that they prefer to see
humans retain some level of supervision over decisions to use lethal force, and the US
Defense Department has issued a policy directive embracing that principle for the time
being.
But the temptation will grow to acquire fully autonomous weapons, also known as “lethal
autonomous robotics” or “killer robots.” If one nation acquires these weapons, others may
feel they have to follow suit to avoid falling behind in a robotic arms race. Furthermore, the
potential deployment and use of such weapons raises serious concerns about protecting
civilians during armed conflict. Because of these concerns, fully autonomous weapons
should be prohibited before it is too late to change course. Nations should agree that any
decision to use lethal force against a human being should be made by a human being.
In our November 2012 report, Losing Humanity: The Case against Killer Robots, Human
Rights Watch and Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic (IHRC)
discussed the move toward full autonomy in weapons systems and analyzed the risks the
technology could pose to civilians. We also called on countries to prohibit fully
1 HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH AND IHRC | OCTOBER 2013
, autonomous weapons through an internationally legally binding instrument and to adopt
national laws and policies on the subject. This Question and Answer document
summarizes, clarifies, and expands on some of the issues discussed in Losing Humanity. It
examines the legal problems posed by fully autonomous weapons and then elaborates on
why banning these weapons is the best approach for dealing with this emerging means of
war.
Why are fully autonomous weapons a pressing issue?
While fully autonomous weapons technology does not exist yet, developments in that
direction make it a pressing issue. The 2012 US Defense Department directive on
autonomy mandates keeping humans in the loop for any decision about the use of lethal
force for up to 10 years. Other US military documents, however, have indicated a long-term
interest in full autonomy.
For example, a 2011 US roadmap specifically for ground systems stated, “There is an
ongoing push to increase UGV [unmanned ground vehicle] autonomy, with a current goal of
‘supervised autonomy,’ but with an ultimate goal of full autonomy.” A US Air Force
planning document from 2009 said, “[A]dvances in AI will enable systems to make combat
decisions and act within legal and policy constraints without necessarily requiring human
input.”
The United States has also been developing precursors to fully autonomous systems. The
US X-47B aircraft is being designed to take off, land, and refuel on its own power and
would have weapons bays that could be used to make later models serve a combat
function. While this particular aircraft may not necessarily be given the power to determine
when to fire, it reflects the move toward increased autonomy. Other countries pursuing
ever-greater autonomy for weapons include China, Israel, Russia, South Korea, and the
United Kingdom. As these nations go down that road, more may choose to follow.
What are the potential benefits of fully autonomous weapons?
A range of potential benefits touted by proponents have motivated some countries to
pursue increasingly autonomous technology. Proponents contend that fully autonomous
weapons could decrease the need for soldiers on the battlefield and thereby save military
lives. These weapons could have the ability to detect and attack targets with greater speed
FULLY AUTONOMOUS WEAPONS: Q&A 2
Questions and Answers
Human Rights Watch and
Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic
October 2013
Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and other technologies will soon make possible the
development of fully autonomous weapons, which would revolutionize the way wars are
fought. These weapons, unlike the current generation of armed drones, would be able to
select and engage targets without human intervention. Military officials in the United
States and other technologically advanced countries generally say that they prefer to see
humans retain some level of supervision over decisions to use lethal force, and the US
Defense Department has issued a policy directive embracing that principle for the time
being.
But the temptation will grow to acquire fully autonomous weapons, also known as “lethal
autonomous robotics” or “killer robots.” If one nation acquires these weapons, others may
feel they have to follow suit to avoid falling behind in a robotic arms race. Furthermore, the
potential deployment and use of such weapons raises serious concerns about protecting
civilians during armed conflict. Because of these concerns, fully autonomous weapons
should be prohibited before it is too late to change course. Nations should agree that any
decision to use lethal force against a human being should be made by a human being.
In our November 2012 report, Losing Humanity: The Case against Killer Robots, Human
Rights Watch and Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic (IHRC)
discussed the move toward full autonomy in weapons systems and analyzed the risks the
technology could pose to civilians. We also called on countries to prohibit fully
1 HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH AND IHRC | OCTOBER 2013
, autonomous weapons through an internationally legally binding instrument and to adopt
national laws and policies on the subject. This Question and Answer document
summarizes, clarifies, and expands on some of the issues discussed in Losing Humanity. It
examines the legal problems posed by fully autonomous weapons and then elaborates on
why banning these weapons is the best approach for dealing with this emerging means of
war.
Why are fully autonomous weapons a pressing issue?
While fully autonomous weapons technology does not exist yet, developments in that
direction make it a pressing issue. The 2012 US Defense Department directive on
autonomy mandates keeping humans in the loop for any decision about the use of lethal
force for up to 10 years. Other US military documents, however, have indicated a long-term
interest in full autonomy.
For example, a 2011 US roadmap specifically for ground systems stated, “There is an
ongoing push to increase UGV [unmanned ground vehicle] autonomy, with a current goal of
‘supervised autonomy,’ but with an ultimate goal of full autonomy.” A US Air Force
planning document from 2009 said, “[A]dvances in AI will enable systems to make combat
decisions and act within legal and policy constraints without necessarily requiring human
input.”
The United States has also been developing precursors to fully autonomous systems. The
US X-47B aircraft is being designed to take off, land, and refuel on its own power and
would have weapons bays that could be used to make later models serve a combat
function. While this particular aircraft may not necessarily be given the power to determine
when to fire, it reflects the move toward increased autonomy. Other countries pursuing
ever-greater autonomy for weapons include China, Israel, Russia, South Korea, and the
United Kingdom. As these nations go down that road, more may choose to follow.
What are the potential benefits of fully autonomous weapons?
A range of potential benefits touted by proponents have motivated some countries to
pursue increasingly autonomous technology. Proponents contend that fully autonomous
weapons could decrease the need for soldiers on the battlefield and thereby save military
lives. These weapons could have the ability to detect and attack targets with greater speed
FULLY AUTONOMOUS WEAPONS: Q&A 2
