Will armies use humanoid robots in combat? What ethical issues would this raise?

Okay, let's talk about this topic. It sounds like something out of a sci-fi movie, but it's actually closer to us than we might imagine.

Will Armies Use Humanoid Robots in Combat?

Short answer: Yes, and it's highly probable.

In fact, armies using robots is nothing new. You've surely heard of drones, the flying kind, which can be used for reconnaissance or attack. There are also ground-based robots, like bomb disposal robots, which can replace soldiers in handling dangerous explosives. These are all considered military robots.

So, why make them "humanoid"?

Think about it: almost all our cities, buildings, and tools are designed for "humans." The height of stair steps, the position of door handles, the way we drive vehicles, the weapons we use... all are designed according to the human body structure.

If a robot looks like a human, with two legs and two arms, it can naturally integrate into the world we've built for ourselves:

• It can climb stairs and open doors, instead of getting stuck in ruins or buildings.
• It can directly use weapons and equipment designed for soldiers, without needing a separate set designed just for it.
• It can operate alongside soldiers, for example, dismounting from a vehicle together, entering a building together, or even performing simple tactical hand gestures.

Therefore, making robots humanoid isn't for "aesthetics" or to "be scary"; it's purely for practicality. It allows them to better adapt to human combat environments. Currently, robots like Boston Dynamics' Atlas, though not designed for military use, have demonstrated astonishing balance and mobility, giving us a glimpse of future humanoid combat robots.

(The military would certainly be interested in technology like this.)

What Ethical Issues Will This Bring?

This is where things get really tricky. Once these robots are no longer just porters or scouts, but are given the power to shoot and kill, a series of problems arise. These issues are extremely complex, so let's discuss a few core ones.

1. Who is Responsible? — Who Pulled the "Trigger"?

This is the biggest question.

Suppose a fully autonomous robot soldier mistakenly opens fire on a group of civilians on the battlefield. Who should be held accountable?

• Is it the soldier who deployed it? But he just pressed a "start" button.
• Is it the commander who gave the order? But he might be thousands of miles away, having only given a general order like "patrol this area."
• Is it the programmer who wrote the code? He might have just written an image recognition algorithm and never imagined it would go wrong in such a scenario.
• Is it the company that manufactured the robot? They would say, "We just sell the product; how the military uses it is their business."
• Or is it the robot itself? You can't exactly send a robot to a military court, can you?

You see, the chain of responsibility breaks. When a machine without emotions or a moral compass makes a lethal decision, our existing legal and ethical systems have no idea how to cope. It's like an autonomous car getting into an accident, but with human lives at stake.

2. Can Robots Distinguish Between "Good Guys" and "Bad Guys"?

Battlefields are constantly changing and incredibly complex. A soldier's judgment of whether someone is an enemy, a civilian, or a surrendered combatant relies on more than just vision. They listen to the person's language, observe their micro-expressions, body language, and combine this with the overall combat situation to make a comprehensive judgment.

Is a child holding a toy gun or a real one? Is a person with raised hands truly surrendering, or is it a trap?

AI is very powerful now, but it fundamentally makes judgments based on data and algorithms. Its "eyes" see only pixels. It can identify a person holding an "object that looks like a gun," but it struggles to understand "intent." This kind of judgment, which requires human empathy and intuition, is extremely difficult for machines.

Entrusting the power of life and death to a program that cannot truly understand complex human emotions and intentions is inherently extremely dangerous.

3. Will the "Threshold" for War Be Lowered?

Why are most countries very cautious about waging war? A crucial reason is that war kills people, it kills their own soldiers. Behind every fallen soldier is a family, and this brings immense domestic political pressure.

But what if the ones fighting are all robots?

If the numbers on casualty reports are no longer "how many soldiers sacrificed," but "how many machines lost," will the decision to wage war become easier and more reckless? When the cost of war shifts from "human lives" to "money," politicians might be more inclined to resolve issues through force. This could plunge the world into more frequent conflicts.

4. Uncontrolled Arms Race

Once a country successfully develops and deploys highly effective autonomous combat robots, other countries will inevitably scramble to catch up to avoid falling behind. This will trigger a new global arms race centered around artificial intelligence weaponry.

This is even more terrifying than the nuclear arms race. Because AI technology is easier to proliferate and less costly. Today it might be a competition between major powers; tomorrow, it could be in the hands of smaller nations or even terrorist organizations.

Imagine thousands of autonomous robots fighting each other on the battlefield, without human intervention. Such a scenario would not only be out of control but also completely unpredictable in its outcome. While the "Skynet" in sci-fi movies is exaggerated, this fear of losing control is very real.

In summary, humanoid robots on the battlefield are technically feasible and tactically appealing, but ethically they are a "Pandora's Box." They challenge our most basic understandings of responsibility, humanity, and the rules of war.

This is no longer an issue solely for the military and scientists; it's a question that every one of us needs to consider and pay attention to. Because it will determine the future form of warfare, and even the destiny of humanity.