Autonomous Weapon Systems: A Necropolitical Frontier

As conflict progresses into the 21^st century the introduction of autonomous weapon systems marks a significant turning point for the application of force. With the ability to operate with little to no human intervention autonomous weapons technologies are a tight encapsulation of what Achille Mbembe calls Necropolitics- the leveraging of death as the ultimate tool of sovereignty and control over the world. With the delegation of the act of killing to these autonomous systems the practical mechanics of warfare are being redefined to such as extent as to change the relationships between conflict and culture. This redefinition is compounded by the large scale investment in, and implementation of, these systems as a backbone of future conflict. Serving to legitimize and normalize the application of death as a tool of, not only power, but governance. The looming dawn of a new autonomous or semi-autonomous battlefield demands the critical analysis and reflection of these emergent dynamics in a world where their use is no longer seen as a possibility but instead an eventuality.

In the 20th century, advancements in warfare technology vividly illustrated this dynamic. Land mines, once considered revolutionary tools of deterrence, were eventually condemned for their indiscriminate and persistent lethality. The 1997 Mine Ban Treaty underscored the global recognition that such weapons perpetuate violence long after their initial deployment. This shift from acceptance to prohibition reflected an effort to curb necropolitical power—an attempt to prioritize humanity over unchecked violence.

Similarly, chemical weapons, first used on a mass scale during World War I, represented a devastating new chapter in the politics of death. However, their capacity for indiscriminate destruction quickly prompted the international community to confront the moral and practical limits of such technologies, culminating in the Geneva Protocol of 1925. Yet, even as one form of necropolitical power was curtailed, others emerged, illustrating the cyclical nature of this struggle.

In the post-Cold War era, the rise of drones introduced a new paradigm in necropolitics. These remotely operated systems enabled states to project power across vast distances without endangering their operators. By separating the act of killing from the battlefield, drones redefined the relationship between life, death, and sovereignty. However, their use also raised troubling questions about accountability and the further dehumanization of warfare. With drone delivered airstrikes receiving disproportionate scrutiny in comparison to their manned counterparts.

Autonomous weapons systems represent the latest iteration of this historical trajectory. Building on the legacies of land mines and remotely operated drones, these systems promise precision and efficiency with a simultaneous reduction on operator impact but risk perpetuating the same ethical and practical dilemmas. Their ability to operate independently of human oversight underscores a deeper necropolitical impulse: to perfect the art of killing while distancing humanity from both its implementation and its consequences.

Autonomous weapons systems are often heralded as the future of warfare, offering unparalleled precision and efficiency. These systems leverage artificial intelligence and advanced sensor technologies to make real-time decisions, reducing the need for human intervention. However, their promise is tempered by significant limitations that expose vulnerabilities in their deployment.

One illustrative example is the 2017 DARPA experiment, in which U.S. Marines tested an autonomous detection system designed to identify human movement. Despite the system's sophistication, the Marines outwitted it using unconventional methods—hiding in cardboard boxes, cartwheeling, and mimicking the absurd. This incident highlights a fundamental flaw in autonomous systems: their reliance on patterns and data from training sets, which makes them susceptible to novel tactics and unpredictability. While human operators can adapt to unforeseen circumstances, the predictive models used in machine learning are constrained by the boundaries of their data sets and programming.

Programs like Loyal Wingman highlight the dual-edged nature of these technologies. On one hand, they enhance operational capabilities by providing additional firepower and reconnaissance support. On the other hand, their reliance on pre-programmed algorithms and limited human oversight raises concerns about accountability and decision-making in complex combat scenarios. With automatic systems demonstrating susceptibility to misinterpretation of data to the point of friendly fire as was the case in the December 2024 shoot down is a U.S. Navy F/A-18 Hornet off the coast of Yemen. Similarly, FPV drones, often used as low-cost tools for targeted strikes, illustrate how autonomous systems are reshaping the battlefield while presenting challenges like use by hostile non-state actors.

Despite these concerns, proponents argue that autonomous systems can reduce collateral damage by improving targeting accuracy and limiting human error. They emphasize the strategic advantages of deploying these systems in high-risk environments, where human soldiers might otherwise face unacceptable dangers. However, the detachment they create between humans and the act of killing raises troubling questions about the normalization of death as an automated outcome.

The rise of autonomous weapons systems has sparked intense debate, with critics and proponents offering starkly different views. Critics argue that these systems exacerbate the dehumanization of warfare, eroding accountability and moral boundaries through the reduction of human agency in the process. Further the susceptibility of autonomous systems to novel tactics, as demonstrated by the DARPA experiment, also underscores their limitations. Additionally, the proliferation of these technologies raises societal concerns, including potential misuse by rogue actors as a force multiplication tool.

Proponents, however, highlight the strategic and humanitarian advantages of autonomous systems. By removing soldiers from direct combat, these systems minimize casualties, both physical and psychological, among operators and improve targeting precision. They argue that autonomous weapons align with the modern state’s desire to assert power while limiting visible human involvement, serving as a deterrent against adversaries.

Navigating these tensions requires robust governance frameworks and a willingness to confront the ethical and practical dilemmas these systems present. Understanding the duality of autonomous weapons—as both tools of efficiency and instruments of necropolitical power—is essential for addressing their implications and will require unflinching analysis of motivations and implications of conflict both past and future.

The rise of autonomous weapons systems compels us to reflect on the values that underpin modern societies. Their use is not an “if” but a “when” demands an answer to the question: are we prepared to entrust machines with decisions that define human existence at both a personal and societal level? And if so, at what cost to our collective humanity?

Autonomous systems may offer strategic advantages, but they also risk normalizing a vision of warfare where death becomes a calculated output. This raises critical questions: How do we ensure accountability? Can we reconcile operational efficiency with ethical governance? And do these technologies reinforce or undermine the principles of democracy and human rights?

As Mbembe’s concept of necropolitics suggests, the politics of death is a persistent force shaping power and sovereignty. Autonomous weapons challenge us to confront whether we are advancing toward a future that values life or one that prioritizes control at any cost. Rather than accepting their inevitability, we must critically examine their implications to navigate the complex and uncertain path ahead.

Adam Reilly is Air Traffic Manager and Controller with experience in everything from day-to-day aviation to emergency airlift, UAS, and combat operations support spanning multiple countries and continents in austere conditions. In his spare time, he reads books and likes to wax philosophical about low intensity conflict and practical logistics."

Matthew P. Arsenault holds a Ph.D. in political science and has worked on issues of political violence across academia, government, and the private sector.