Executive Summary
This paper challenges the "Likelier Wars Argument" (LWA) which claims that Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS) adoption will lower the threshold for armed conflict. The author argues that casualty aversion is not the sole or primary restraint on war, especially in liberal democracies, and that other factors like values, unprofitability, and risk of defeat are more significant. The paper concludes that the impact of AWS on war frequency is complex and cannot be determined by philosophical analysis alone, and that AWS could even facilitate just wars.
Why It Matters
This document is crucial for defense analysts as it critically examines the ethical and strategic implications of Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS) on the likelihood and nature of future conflicts, directly impacting policy decisions on their development and deployment.
Key Takeaways
- The claim that AWS adoption will inevitably increase the frequency of war by removing casualty aversion is largely unsubstantiated and oversimplified.
- Other significant restraints on war, such as liberal-democratic values, economic unprofitability, and the risk of defeat, often outweigh casualty aversion.
- AWS could potentially enable more effective collective defense and humanitarian interventions, suggesting that a higher frequency of certain types of wars might not always be a negative outcome.
Strategic Relevance
The paper directly addresses a core debate in military ethics and strategic planning regarding autonomous weapons, influencing doctrine, international law, and defense investment. It suggests that focusing solely on casualty aversion as a deterrent overlooks more fundamental strategic considerations and could lead to suboptimal policy.