SGI Buddhists call for early regulation of Autonomous Weapons Systems

SGI Office for UN Affairs

The launch of the Stop Killer Robots-produced film Immoral Code held at London’s Prince Charles Cinema in May 2022. SGI and other groups supported the launch.

RNS Press Release Distribution Service

July 23, 2026 

On July 23, 2026, the SGI (Soka Gakkai International) issued a statement titled “Autonomous Weapons Systems: Ensuring Human Control Based on Respect for the Dignity of Life.” See full text in Japanese.

With ongoing conflicts serving as a catalyst for the rapid development and deployment of weapons incorporating emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI), the SGI welcomes steps in the international community toward regulation of Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS). The SGI statement calls for comprehensive prohibition of systems designed to select and engage human targets.

It asserts: “If attacks involving civilians were to become semi-automated in conflicts through the unchecked use of AWS, the restraining force of human conscience—which has long served as a foundation supporting international law—would be entirely lost.”

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has also proposed that the regulatory instrument under discussion by the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) convened under the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) include a provision prohibiting antipersonnel AWS. The Stop Killer Robots coalition, in which the SGI has participated since 2018, likewise calls on governments to draw up legal and ethical boundaries to prevent a dangerous drift toward automated killing.

Chief Executive Director of the SGI Peace Center Hirotsugu Terasaki comments: “While we continue to work toward a world free from both nuclear weapons and autonomous killing machines, we welcome the focus in the ongoing negotiations on ensuring ‘meaningful human control’ over autonomous weapons. There is a growing understanding that decisions concerning life and death must never be left solely to machines.”

The SGI has consistently warned—based on the Buddhist principle of respect for the dignity of life—that AWS reduce those subjected to attack to mere “data.” Such a digital erasure of humanity risks trivializing the taking of life and the immense suffering inherent in war. The SGI has also highlighted the risk that AI algorithms may not only reflect but amplify existing social biases. Profiling systems could result in individuals being targeted by AWS on the basis of arbitrary assumptions about particular groups.

SGI President Daisaku Ikeda (1928–2023) first called for regulation at a time when autonomous weapons were still an imagined threat, warning in 2014: “Robotic weapons, when given a command to attack, automatically go on killing, without the intervention of human will . . . with no possibility of pangs of conscience or remorse. They present an extremely grave threat, particularly from a humanitarian perspective.”

By the March 2026 GGE session, 70 states had supported launching negotiations on a legally binding instrument. The final session is from August 31 to September 4, 2026, and the SGI hopes that the GGE’s report to the November Review Conference of the CCW will set out a way to launch negotiations on a treaty that incorporates a ban on antipersonnel AWS.

The SGI is determined to work together with the states calling for the regulation and prohibition of AWS, as well as with the ICRC and the civil society organizations and religious leaders participating in the Stop Killer Robots coalition. The SGI will continue to promote grassroots awareness of the dangers posed by autonomous weapons, including through promotion of documentaries such as Immoral Code.

The SGI (Soka Gakkai International) is an international association of the Soka Gakkai, a global community-based Buddhist organization that promotes peace, culture and education centered on respect for the dignity of life. This is the third statement by the SGI Global Perspectives Committee that issues statements suggesting approaches for the resolution of pressing global challenges, building upon ideas advocated by SGI President Daisaku Ikeda in his peace proposals.

###

Contact:
Hiro Sakurai
SGI Office for UN Affairs
hiro.sakurai@sgi-ouna.org

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of RNS or Religion News Foundation.

Recalling the Most Fateful Day in Human Existence

Patrick Mazza

 July 17, 2026

FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

The Ivy Mike test of the first hydrogen bomb took place Nov. 1, 1952 in the South Pacific. Far more devastating than the atomic bombs that preceded it, the race to the hydrogen bomb was triggered by another event that took place this day 81 years ago, July 16, 1945, when the first atomic weapon was tested at Alamogordo, New Mexico. That set off a logic of power that would place humanity’s future at risk, a danger only increasing in our world today.

The threshold crossed at Alamogordo

Today is the 81^st anniversary of the most fateful day in the 300,000 years of our human species existence. We have always fought each other. On July 16, 1945, the prospect we could fight ourselves nearly to extinction came into view.

On that date, the first atomic weapon was exploded at Alamogordo, New Mexico. The culmination of the Manhattan Project, the Trinity test opened the nuclear age that was to be announced to the world 3 weeks later with the detonation over Hiroshima. I have said it before. I’ll say it again. This is the day the world should have changed, when humanity crossed a threshold to an entirely new situation. For the first time, we could wipe ourselves out, or nearly.

Instead the world moved on to build mass numbers of nuclear weapons, first atomic, then thermonuclear, made possible by implosion of hydrogen with atomic weapons. We have learned since that even 100 Hiroshima-size atomic bombs can cause a nuclear winter collapsing agricultural production and killing billions. A full-scale nuclear war might cause a winter leaving few alive.

This day, July 16, 2026, it seems that not only has humanity not learned the lesson – It is plunging further into danger. This Trinity anniversary is the first in 55 years there is no agreement among nuclear powers to limit the numbers of weapons. In February, the NewSTART Treaty between the U.S. and Russia expired. So a condition that lasted for around two-thirds of the nuclear age is now defunct. Today the U.S. and Russia each keep around 1,800 nuclear warheads on alert to be delivered by submarines, missiles and bombers. With the end of NewSTART they are free to bring weapons out of storage. The U.S. has 3,700, Russia 4,400. Spaces in missile tubes and bomb bays can be readily filled.

Meanwhile, China is moving from keeping its estimated 620 nuclear weapons on reserve to full alert, the same dangerous launch-on-warning protocol followed by the U.S. and Russia. At the same time, it is building up active warhead numbers to roughly the level of the other two powers.

Nuclear dangers are increasing even as wars in West Asia and Europe are escalating. These seemingly irreconcilable conflicts have no clear end, and the possibility of crossing nuclear threholds is being raised in both by serious observers. Of course, the nuclear issue is at the center of the conflict in West Asia. Israel and the U.S. claim that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, using that as a justification for their preemptive war. Iran has been well capable of developing nuclear weapons for decades, but has repeatedly said it is not seeking them on religious grounds. If anything, the war has given the Iranians incentives to finally acquire them, while weakening leadership forces that stood against this. Israel itself has its own arsenal estimated at anywhere from 90 to 400 weapons, and has not hesitated to threaten use. Some sources indicate it used this threat to strongarm the U.S. into attacking Iran, otherwise it would do so itself.

Short-term gain vs. long-term survival

At one level, it all seems deeply irrational. It is hard to see continuation of current trends without some catastrophic blow-up. This gets to the fundamental issue, why humanity did not learn when we unlocked the secrets of nuclear power 81 years ago, why we continue on a path with good odds to produce disaster. It is the contradiction between short-term pursuit of power and long-term survival. The incentives and drives that motivate the political and economic systems of the world are conditioned on that short-term drive. If one side doesn’t pursue powers that may be available, even with potentially devastating consequences, the other side will. That is why both the U.S. and Soviet Union raced to develop hydrogen bombs in the 1950s knowing how much more destructive they are.

In a parallel way, it is why AI researchers concerned it could wipe out humanity nonetheless have the gas pedal all the way to the floor. The first to create AI superintelligence will dominate, so it must be us, goes the thinking. If it decides humanity is a bad idea, that is a risk we must take, the developers believe. This is even as the wars are illuminating another arms race, that of drone warfare. AI is being brought to bear, so the automated killer robots of the Terminator movies are becoming reality.

The world picture presents yet another irrationality created by a similar logic. Consider that the conflict between the U.S. and Iran now centers on control of the Straits of Hormuz. This is the chokepoint through which around 25% of the world’s seaborne oil and 20% of its liquid natural gas flow. Control represents a global superpower which the U.S. can ill afford to lose to Iran. Yet it has already lost it. That is part of the irreconcilable nature of this conflict with incredibly dangerous implications.

In the same world picture, Northwest Europe is suffering an unprecedented and deadly heatwave. Fires are breaking out in France and Britain. Heat domes are popping up in North America and around the world. An El Nino warming event is mounting in the Pacific Ocean, feeding global heat and transmitting impacts to all corners of the planet. Crucially that includes food production. Wildfires burning in Canada are sending smoke plumes choking the northeastern U.S.

This is all happening while the ship of fools known as the Trump Administration is doing all it can to dismantle climate science and clean energy development. It is actively pursuing a policy it openly describes as energy dominance. The U.S. is now by far the world’s biggest oil and gas producer, and the administration seeks to leverage that keep the U.S. as global #1. The actions against Venezuela and war on Iran are key elements of that strategy.

It would be hard to find a more pronounced case of short-term power seeking over long-term survival. Control of energy resources is indeed one of the keystones of power over people and nations. The short-term logic is clear. The long-term reality is calamitous. Humanity gained tremendous evolutionary advantage when it mastered the use of fire. Now we may be consumed in our own, whether the rapid conflagration of nuclear war or the slower but still deadly rise of heat caused by fossil fuel burning.

Yet that short-term pursuit of power continues because that is the logic of the political and economic systems that rule the world, and the logic that people who rise in those systems must follow to rise. It is a self-feeding cycle that must be broken. It’s going to take more than a peace movement, or a climate movement. It is going to take a movement that questions the very assumptions of power driving the system.

What is power for?

Power is an element of everything in life. We must ask what power is for. What does it serve? I believe the fundamental flaw in prevailing systems is the pursuit of power as its own end, whether dominance by nations and states, or bottom-line profit by corporations. Power must be constrained within the context of broader goals, none more central than long-term survival. That involves a vision for the whole beyond the interests of any one group, nation or organization. It may in the end involve something as basic as infusing the golden rule into all institutions. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. All the world’s great religions have some version of this.

Today, I fear we are sleepwalking toward catastrophe, driven by leaders of the baby boom and younger generations who have forgotten the horrors of the last global war, which ended in 1945. Driven as well by ignorance of the long-term consequences of fossil fuel combustion, often deliberately by those who have interests in its continuation. I wonder what it will be to wake us up. Mushroom clouds rising somewhere on Earth? A climate mass casualty event that cannot be denied?

I hope we get it soon. Cause the world is becoming more dangerous, and we clearly have not learned the lesson that we should have this day 81 years ago.

This first appeared on Patrick Mazza’s Substack page, The Raven.

Amid Fears of Killer Robots, Humanoid MMA Fight in China Ends With Decapitation

“One brutal kick sent the robot’s head hanging loose.”

Two humanoid robots fight at the Ultimate Robot Knock-out Legend competition in Shenzhen, China on July 17, 2026.
(Photo by Shenzhen Story/YouTube/screenshot)

Jessica Corbett
Jul 17, 2026

COMMON DREAMS

Amid warnings from experts and political leaders about “killer robots,” a Chinese robotics company on Thursday hosted an unprecedented combat tournament in which one humanoid robot decapitated another.

The fight featuring the decapitation—footage of which quickly circulated online—was part of the opening night of the Ultimate Robot Knock-out Legend (URKL) competition in Shenzhen, organized by the company EngineAI, which developed the humanoid.

The Chinese Embassy in Ireland was among the accounts on the social media platform X that highlighted the moment when one robot’s “head” was dislodged.




The “white humanoid robot, named ‘White Eagle’ landed a high kick to the head of its black opponent, ‘Matador,’ which made the robot’s head rock precariously in its socket before rolling completely out of place,” according to Newsweek. “The two continued to spar as Matador’s head was swinging from its socket until eventually the robot fell, crushing its head underneath its body.”

Unveiled last year, the humanoid is called T800, a nod to the Terminator franchise. EngineAI’s website features videos of T800 executing various mixed martial arts (MMA) moves, from a combination punch and a roundhouse kick to punch-kick combos.

EngineAI announced UKRL, the “world’s first” humanoid robot combat league, early this year, seeking 32 teams from universities, enterprises, and research institutions worldwide to compete using its robots. The first round of competition is scheduled for July-August, followed by another round in September-October, and the grand finals in November-December.

As the Chinese tabloid Global Times reported when the tournament was announced in February:
Pan Helin, a Beijing-based veteran analyst, told the Global Times on Monday that such competitions help enhance public awareness of humanoid robots and expand potential application scenarios.

Pan noted that humanoid robots still face technological and practical limitations, and real-world application is key to their further development. Such events could yield positive effects in the entertainment and performance market, which is a necessary step forward in paving the way for further applications in factories or households, Pan said.

Tian Feng, former dean of SenseTime’s Intelligence Industry Research Institute, said that the free provision of T800 robots will lower research and development barriers for smaller companies and promote the integration of applications involving industry, academia, and research bodies.




The tournament’s opening night came on the heels of a series of artificial intelligence events hosted by the United Nations earlier this month, during which Secretary-General António Guterres said that “if AI is to be powerful, it must be governed,” and “my main concern is with ‘lethal autonomous weapon systems.’”

“Let us call them what they are: killer robots,” Guterres continued. “Machines selecting and engaging their target and taking a life—without human control and judgment. That is morally repugnant. It is politically unacceptable. And it must be banned by international law.”

“States are already at the discussion table. But let us not wait for atrocity to act. Some decisions must remain forever human—none more than taking a human life,” he added. “Some might claim that governance is the enemy of innovation. But innovation needs guardrails. The technologies we trust most—in aviation, in medicine, in nuclear energy and beyond—earned that trust because we acted to hold their makers to account.”

As Wired detailed in Friday reporting, “the US military has a long-standing interest in humanoids,” and Sankaet Pathak’s startup Foundation Future Industries aims to “produce an all-American robot supersoldier.”

The startup’s “unique in its targeting of the military market, and so far it’s been lucrative,” the outlet added. “The company has government contracts worth millions of dollars and high-profile backers to spread its message: Eric Trump, the president’s son, is both an investor and the company’s chief strategy adviser.”

This article has been updated to include the Wired reporting.

Force Multipliers: Autonomous Weapons Systems And The Ukraine And Gaza Conflicts – Analysis


A Ukrainian soldier prepares to launch a combat drone. (Photo: gov.ua)

July 14, 2026
Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA)
By Vinayak Rajpurohit

Key Takeaways:

Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS) reshaping modern warfare: AI-enabled platforms like loitering munitions, drones, and swarm systems are transforming combat through speed, persistence, precision, and expendability, as seen in Ukraine and Gaza conflicts.

Ukraine conflict highlights attritional warfare: Both sides use low-cost FPV drones, loitering munitions, and AI targeting systems (e.g., Delta) to counter traditional military assets, demonstrating adaptability and force multiplication in conventional war.

Gaza conflict showcases urban AI targeting: Israel’s use of systems like Lavender for rapid target identification raises concerns about proportionality, collateral damage, and accountability, highlighting ethical and legal challenges in dense urban environments.

The use of Autonomous Weapon Systems has changed the dynamics of warfare in recent times. The rise of Artificial Intelligence has reshaped military power, strategies and decision-making in war. AI is transforming modern combat through greater speed, precision and low-cost deployment.

Introduction

Autonomous weapons systems (AWS) are changing the nature of modern warfare through AI-enabled decision-making. As per the United States Department of Defense Directive 3000.09, autonomous weapons systems are platforms capable of ‘selecting and engaging targets without further intervention by a human operator’, a definition that anchors the concept of autonomy specifically to the targeting functions.[1] AWS combines artificial intelligence with lethal platforms like loitering munitions, drones, AI-powered surveillance systems, and swarm drones that have capabilities to identify and strike targets with limited human control. The conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza have become testing grounds for AWS, showing how these technologies operate in both high-intensity and asymmetric conflicts.

Autonomous weapons systems are mainly considered in two key respects: how much control humans have over decisions to use lethal force, and how much autonomy the system itself has. AWS are commonly grouped into three categories: ‘human-in-the-loop’, ‘human-on-the-loop’ and ‘human-out-of-the-loop, ‘ depending on the degree of human involvement. Many autonomous systems currently in use fall into the ‘human-on-the-loop’ category; even though they can carry out pre-planned actions involving lethal force, human control can intervene if needed.[2] This classification raises significant International Humanitarian Law concerns regarding accountability, proportionality and compliance.

AWS as Force Multipliers

A Force multiplier is a term used in military doctrine that refers to the capacity of a technology, technique, or organisational arrangement to expand and amplify the combat effectiveness of a given force well beyond its numerical strength alone.[3] The force-multiplication effect of AWS operates across four distinct and interconnected dimensions: speed, persistence, precision and expendability. Speed refers to the capacity of autonomous weapons to execute targeting cycles at machine speed, overcoming the physiological and cognitive delays in human decision-making on the battlefield. Loitering munitions with AI guidance can detect and engage a target in a much shorter time than those controlled by humans. AWS acts faster because it doesn’t get tired or confused as humans do.[4]


Persistence is the second dimension. As humans need rest, resupply, and rotation, autonomous platforms can conduct continuous surveillance of targets for longer durations, in hours or days. A persistent autonomous intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) system can reduce intelligence collection gaps. As observed in Ukraine, persistent drone surveillance has made it really hard for either side to move a group of people on the ground without being seen. Similarly in Gaza, persistent aerial surveillance enabled Israel Defense Forces to keep an eye on designated targets across urban areas, creating a challenge for the Gaza military. This has changed the way wars are traditionally fought.[5]

Precision and expendability are the third and fourth dimensions, respectively. Compared to traditional guided munitions, AI-guided loitering munitions deliver superior precision at a significantly lower cost.[6] Expendability changes the cost equation for high-risk missions. An expendable autonomous platform can target highly defended areas without the fear of losing a pilot.[7] Collectively, these four aspects illustrate the importance of AWS as a force multiplier.

Ukraine: Attrition Warfare and Autonomous Scale

The Russia–Ukraine conflict has emerged as one of the prime examples for testing autonomous and semi-autonomous systems in a conventional war against a peer adversary since World War II. Ukraine’s early deployment of the Turkish-made Bayraktar TB2 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) demonstrated that AI-enabled unmanned systems, when combined with real-time ISR and precise targeting data, could effectively weaken the enemy’s conventional armoured units. In the first week of the full-scale invasion, TB2 operations struck Russian Buk surface-to-air missile systems, armoured vehicles, and other military targets, highlighting the operational value of integrating AWSs with real-time battlefield intelligence.[8]

As the war escalated between Russia and Ukraine, both sides started making adaptive changes to the situation. Russia swiftly acquired and deployed the Iranian-made Shahed-136 loitering munitions to target Ukraine’s critical infrastructure because of their low cost and high destructive potential. Each of these drones costs them approximately US$ 20,000 to US$ 50,000 per unit.[9] Russia has been deploying these drones to overwhelm Ukrainian air defences, and later this number rose approximately from 80–100 to 100–200.[10] To overcome this challenge, Ukraine developed a domestic manufacturing unit of substantial scale during wartime. Ukraine planned to produce around 1 million first-person view (FPV) drones in 2024. These FPV drones became an important weapon against Russian tanks and soldiers on the front itself.[11]

Ukraine has also developed and deployed AI-enabled command-and-targeting software to reduce sensor-to-shooter time. This includes the Delta battlefield management system, developed by Ukraine and designed to operate in accordance with NATO interoperability standards. It uses multiple sources of information, such as satellite images, signals intelligence, and drone reconnaissance, to find targets quickly and precisely. This helps soldiers make decisions faster without depending on higher headquarters’ processing cycle.[12] This system has cut the kill chain interval from target identification to engagement.

Before the implementation of Delta, the Ukrainian military took up to 72 hours for the entire process of identifying and engaging the target. However, with Delta, that cycle has been shortened to two minutes.[13] Russia has responded with electronic warfare countermeasures, which include GPS jamming, radio-frequency jamming and physical destruction of drones.[14] This has created a dynamic contest between measures and countermeasures that shapes the conflict’s technological nature.

The Russia–Ukraine conflict exemplifies how autonomous and semi-autonomous technologies are transforming modern warfare. The two states deployed low-cost drones, AI-enabled targeting systems, and loitering munitions. These help them counter traditional military disadvantages and boost their efficiency.

Gaza: Urban Warfare and AI-Enabled Targets

The Israeli military campaigns in Gaza started in October 2023 and introduced a new aspect of using AI-enabled targeting in urban warfare. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) developed an AI-based programme known as ‘Lavender’, which was unveiled for the first time. According to +972, this system identifies individuals suspected of being affiliated with Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), including those of lower rank, as potential targets for bombing. Lavender is said to have clocked tens of thousands of individuals affiliated with Hamas and PIJ and reduced target suggestion time to seconds, thereby streamlining the decision-making process.[15]

Apart from an AI-based targeting system, the IDF also deployed quad-copter drones and other UAVs across Gaza’s urban battlespace. The disclosure of ground forces would have heavy casualties due to the high density of buildings and tunnel networks. In this case, small tactical drones capable of operating in dense urban airspace played an important role. They provided reconnaissance, target identification, and real-time battlefield awareness, enabling more precise operations while reducing the exposure of ground forces. The tactical utility of this system in urban combat was significant. These systems can enter buildings, avoid obstacles, and search spaces where traditional ground options lead to casualties.[16]


The situation in Gaza revealed some operational and reputational issues with the AI-enabled targeting cycle. Reports also indicated that the use of the Lavender system to identify lower-ranking operatives, together with associated targeting decisions, raised concerns about increased collateral damage.[17] According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza, the reported death toll reached 37,877 by mid-2024, though independent analysis estimated it at approx. 64,260.[18] This became a major international debate regarding the legal and ethical limits of AI-assisted warfare. These results show that the advantage of AWS involves legal and ethical challenges. These challenges must be incorporated into states’ operational planning, rules of engagement, and military decision-making.[19]

Comparative Analysis: Ukraine and Gaza

Comparative Element Ukraine Theatre Gaza Theatre

Conflict Typology Industrial-scale warfare across frontlines High-density urban warfare

Primary Function of AWS Attrition-destruction of armour, logistics, command nodes, and infrastructure Intelligence-kinetic targeting and compressed targeting cycles in urban areas

Operational Emphasis Mass, persistence, scalability, and cost-effectiveness Precision, surveillance integration, and rapid response

Battlefield Environment Open and semi-open battlefronts Populated urban area

Type of AWS Used FPV drones, loitering munitions, autonomous reconnaissance systems AI-enabled commercial quad-copters and surveillance-strike drones

Cost-Exchange Ratio Low-cost drones destroying expensive tanks Commercial quad-copters replacing special operations forces

Relevance for India Supports indigenous low-cost autonomous warfare capability Highlights utility in urban and counterinsurgency operations

Electronic Warfare Challenges Jamming, spoofing, signal disruption, and counter-drone adaptation Optical, acoustic, and sensor limitations in urban environment

Technological Sustainability Continuous innovation is necessary Constant sensor and targeting adaptation are necessary

Strategic Limitation of AWS No single platform remains dominant for long Sophisticated systems face operational and sensor limitations

Strategic Conclusion AWS act as force multipliers within integrated warfare systems AWS enhance operational efficiency but require doctrinal alignment

Source: Compiled by the author from RUSI, ICRC, Business Insider, LSHTM, +972 Magazine, and CEPA reports.

The conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza collectively illustrate that AWS have transformed modern warfare, accelerating the shift from single-platform to system-of-systems warfare. Ukraine showcases the effectiveness of low-cost autonomous systems in large-scale attritional warfare. In contrast, Gaza highlights the growing importance of AI-enabled precision targeting, ISR and urban operations. Together, these conflicts indicate that future warfare will depend primarily on the combined use of AI-enabled ISR, autonomous targeting assistance, and networked battlefield systems rather than on fully independent lethal autonomy.[20]

Strategic Implications

As seen above, the deployment of AWS in the Ukraine and Gaza conflicts holds major strategic implications for controlling escalation, maintaining deterrence stability, and ensuring global security. One of the major strategic concerns relates to escalation dynamics. In this regard, AI-driven drones, loitering munitions systems, and automated target technologies have shortened the sensor-to-shooter cycle, enabling faster military responses.[21] As operational decision-making time decreases, human deliberation and political control also decrease. This increases the risk of escalation. Paul Scharr’s book Army of None warns that a high degree of automation may lead to miscalculation, accidental engagements and escalation during conflict.[22]


Furthermore, AWS is a challenge to traditional deterrence and conventional warfare. Low-cost drones and AI-assisted systems allow weaker states to impose serious military and economic repercussions on stronger opponents through continuous surveillance and targeted strikes.[23] For example, in Ukraine, FPVs played an important role, showcasing how low-cost technologies can neutralise expensive armour and logistics networks.

A further consequence is the risk of proliferation associated with accessible drone technologies and open-source AI tools. The diffusion of autonomous weapons into the hands of non-state actors, proxy groups and militant organisations increases regional unrest and asymmetric assaults.[24] The above case study of the Gaza conflict explains how autonomous and semi-autonomous weapon systems can be deployed in irregular warfare environments, thereby increasing the complexity of achieving escalation control and ensuring civilian protection.[25]

Ethical and Legal Dimension

The ethical and legal aspects of AWS have emerged as major issues in contemporary international law and applied ethics. Distinction, proportionality and precaution are the three core principles of the International Humanitarian Law (IHL). They are at risk because of the shift in lethal decision-making of autonomous systems. The principle of Distinction requires that the hostile should always differentiate between combatants and civilians. The principle of Proportionality states that civilian casualties must not exceed the military advantage. The principle of Precaution means that all possible measures should be taken to minimise civilian casualties before and during an attack.[26]

Current AWS, including those examined in the Ukraine and Gaza case studies, generally rely on sensors and automated target-recognition functions to identify and classify targets. However, their reliability in the electromagnetic, visual and cognitive complexity of real combat is still debated. There is no recognised international standard for testing or certifying the target discrimination capability of AWSs.[27] The ICRC has consistently maintained that there must be meaningful human control in all lethal decision-making processes, arguing that increasing autonomy in targeting systems raises significant legal and ethical concerns.[28] The use of AI-generated target lists in Gaza raises questions about the efficacy of algorithm-based recommendations to make split-second decisions where IHL requires human intervention to authorise lethal engagement.[29]

The question of legal accountability further poses a structural challenge. According to existing IHL, criminal responsibility for violations is attributed to individuals, such as commanders, soldiers and policymakers. When an autonomous system commits an act that would constitute a war crime if committed by a human operator, the chain of legal responsibility becomes diffuse, contested, and potentially unenforceable. According to legal experts, this problem is termed the “responsibility gap”, which poses challenges for existing IHL accountability frameworks.[30] For military powers aiming to operate AWS responsibly, it is important to build a strong internal accountability system, well-defined rules of engagement for autonomous lethal actions, and operational guidelines that ensure human intervention. It is not only a legal necessity but also an important positive strategic reputation in an age when state conduct on the battlefield is intensified.[31]

Lessons for India

The ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza demonstrate that future military engagements will heavily depend on autonomous technologies, AI-enabled intelligence networks, and low-cost strike capabilities. A major takeaway for India is the growing use of drones, loitering munitions, AI-enabled targeting systems, autonomous surveillance networks, and drone-centric operations in dense urban warfare environments.[32] This is especially pertinent for India in counterterrorism and urban combat environments, where swift intelligence integration and timely situational awareness are essential. These developments suggest that India should focus on developing integrated drone warfare capabilities, counter-unmanned aerial systems (UAS) strategies, and electronic warfare capabilities, especially in the context of high-intensity potential risk along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) and Line of Control (LOC).[33]

Furthermore, the conflict highlighted how traditional military resources can be compromised by autonomous and semi-autonomous technologies. Relatively low-cost drones and AI-enabled targeting systems have demonstrated the ability to destroy tanks, artillery, command posts and infrastructure sites.[34] This suggests that India’s military doctrine should focus on mobility, concealment, low-cost drones, AI-driven weapon systems and counter-electronic warfare. India should also keep a check on the proliferation of commercial drones and open-source AI tools, which raises the risk of their acquisition by terrorist groups.

These conflicts underscore the growing importance of indigenous innovation, AI-driven targeting capabilities and autonomous systems. The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) will play a crucial role in future military preparedness by developing indigenous drones, loitering munitions, counter-UAS systems, AI-assisted surveillance platforms, and autonomous battlefield technologies. Future warfare will depend on rapid technological adaptation, network-centric operations, and cost-effective precision strike capabilities.

DRDO’s ongoing projects in swarm drone technologies, autonomous surveillance systems, electronic warfare platforms, and anti-drone systems are therefore of significant strategic importance for India’s future defence modernisation.[35] The strategic collaboration between DRDO and India’s leading academic institutions, such as IISc and other premier academic institutes, will help deepen foundational research in AI algorithm development, robotic systems, advanced aerospace systems and materials, and other emerging defence technologies.[36]Strengthening domestic research and development will also reduce dependence on foreign military technologies and enhance operational self-reliance during prolonged conflicts.

“Directive 3000.09: Autonomy in Weapon Systems”, Department of Defense, United States of America, 25 January 2023, p. 14.
“Autonomy, Artificial Intelligence and Robotics: Technical Aspects of Human Control”, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), August 2019.
“Joint Publication 3-05.1: Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) Training and Certification”, Joint Chiefs of Staff, NDU Press, 26 April 2007.
Michael C. Horowitz, “When Speed Kills: Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, Deterrence and Stability”, Journal of Strategic Studies, Vol. 42, No. 6, 2019, pp. 764–88.
Aosheng Pusztaszeri and Emily Harding, “Technological Evolution on the Battlefield”, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), 16 September 2025.
Paul O’Neill, Sam Cranny-Evans and Sarah Ashbridge, “Assessing Autonomous Weapons as a Proliferation Risk: The Future Has Not Been Written”, Occasional Paper, Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), 8 February 2024.
Seth G. Jones and Seamus P. Daniels, “War and the Modern Battlefield: Insights from Ukraine and the Middle East”, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), 16 September 2025.
Lauren Kahn, “How Ukraine is Using Drones Against Russia”, Council on Foreign Relations, 2 March 2022.
Benjamin Jensen and Yasir Atalan, “Drone Saturation: Russia’s Shahed Campaign”, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), 13 May 2025.
“Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, March 3, 2025”, Critical Threats Project, Institute for the Study of War (ISW), 3 March 2025.
“Fedorov: Ukraine to Produce 1 Million Drones per Year”, The Kyiv Independent, 25 February 2024.
Jake Epstein, “Ukraine’s Digital War Tool Cut the Time Between Finding and Striking Russian Targets From Days to Minutes”, Business Insider, 24 November 2025.
Ibid.
Brig Jaideep Agarkar, “Russia-Ukraine War: Lessons from an Electronic Warfare (EW) Perspective”, Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS), 31 May 2025.
Yuval Abraham, “‘Lavender’: The AI Machine Directing Israel’s Bombing Spree in Gaza”, +972 Magazine, 3 April 2024.
Dov Lieber, “Small Drones Are Helping Israel Navigate the Urban Battlefield in Gaza”, The Wall Street Journal, 29 December 2023.
Yuval Abraham, “‘Lavender’: The AI Machine Directing Israel’s Bombing Spree in Gaza”, no. 15.
“Gaza: 64,000 Deaths Due to Violence Between October 2023 and June 2024, Analysis Shows”, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), 2025.
“Expert Consultation Report on AI and Related Technologies in Military Decision-Making on the Use of Force in Armed Conflicts”, ICRC and Geneva Academy, March 2024.
Lt Gen Karanbir Singh Brar (Retd), “Technology and the Future of Warfare”, Issue Brief, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), 2025.
Vladislav Chernavskikh and Jules Palayer, “Impact of Military Artificial Intelligence on Nuclear Escalation Risk”, SIPRI Insights on Peace and Security No. 2025/06, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), June 2025.
Paul Scharre, Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 2018.
Matthew N. Slusher, “Lessons from the Ukraine Conflict: Modern Warfare in the Age of Autonomy, Information, and Resilience”, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), 2 May 2025.
Paul O’Neill CBE, Sam Cranny-Evans and Sarah Ashbridge, “Assessing Autonomous Weapons as a Proliferation Risk”, no. 6.
“Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Armed Conflict: A Human-Centred Approach”, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), 6 June 2019.
Lieutenant Colonel Andre Haider, “Autonomous Weapon Systems in International Humanitarian Law”, Joint Air Power Competence Centre (JAPCC) Journal, Edition 27, December 2018.
Vincent Boulanin, “Limits on Autonomy in Weapon Systems: Identifying Practical Elements of Human Control”, SIPRI and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), June 2020.
“Autonomous Weapons: Decisions to Kill and Destroy Are a Human Responsibility”, Statement of the ICRC to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) Meeting of Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, Geneva, 11 April 2016.
Jessica Dorsey, “Israel’s AI-Enabled Targeting of Hamas Members Jeopardizes Moral and Legal Standards of Warfare”, Utrecht University, 18 July 2024.
Robert Sparrow, “Killer Robots”, Journal of Applied Philosophy, Vol. 24, No. 1, March 2007, pp. 62–77.
“Autonomous Weapon Systems: Implications of Increasing Autonomy in the Critical Functions of Weapons”, Expert meeting, ICRC, 15–16 March 2016.
Noah Sylvia, “Israel’s Targeting AI: How Capable Is It?”, Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), 8 February 2024.
Pintu Kumar Mahla, “Military Drones in India: New Frontier of Warfare”, Journal of Defence Studies, Vol. 16, No. 4, October–December 2022, pp. 253–261,.
David Kirichenko, “Artificial Intelligence’s Growing Role in Modern Warfare”, War Room: The Online Journal of the U.S. Army War College, 21 August 2025.
“Operation Sindoor: Indigenous Defence Technologies Demonstrate India’s Strategic Capability”, Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, 14 May 2025.
“MoU between DRDO and IISc for Joint Advanced Technology Program”, Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, 8 February 2021.



About the author: Mr Vinayak Rajpurohit; former Intern, Centre for Military Affairs, MP-IDSA
Source: This article was published by Manohar Parrikar IDSA

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Manohar Parrikar IDSA or of the Government of India.

About Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA)
The Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), is a non-partisan, autonomous body dedicated to objective research and policy relevant studies on all aspects of defence and security. Its mission is to promote national and international security through the generation and dissemination of knowledge on defence and security-related issues. The Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) was formerly named The Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA).
View all posts by Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) →