{"id":17621,"date":"2026-07-21T17:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-07-21T15:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/holistic.news\/en\/?p=17621"},"modified":"2026-07-07T14:57:36","modified_gmt":"2026-07-07T12:57:36","slug":"autonomous-weapons-who-bears-the-guilt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/holistic.news\/en\/autonomous-weapons-who-bears-the-guilt\/","title":{"rendered":"The War Machine and the Vanishing Human Hand"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Autonomous weapons are already part of everyday combat<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Artificial intelligence is entering the modern battlefield to an ever greater extent. New interception systems can independently detect, track, and destroy targets, while the human being more and more often plays the role of an observer<\/strong> who merely approves the general framework of action. We can already see this today beyond Poland\u2019s eastern border, where autonomous weapons are becoming part of everyday combat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Ukrainian military is now deploying a new generation of autonomous drones<\/strong> that can automatically intercept Russian Shaheds. According to Ukraine\u2019s Ministry of Defence, these systems perform as much as 95 percent of the entire interception process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The operator observes the battlefield and selects a target. From that point on, artificial intelligence guides the drone independently and carries out the attack. Other Ukrainian solutions, such as the fully automated Sky Sentinel turret, can already detect targets, calculate trajectories, and open fire without a soldier operating them manually.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Military benefits and a psychological shield<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

From a military point of view, this is a revolution: faster reaction, lower risk for one\u2019s own soldiers, and more enemy drones shot down. It is also a shield against the harshest experiences of the front<\/strong>. Modern armies have long struggled with waves of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and suicide. If a soldier does not see bodies, does not hear screams, does not smell burning, perhaps it will be easier for him to return to life after war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The erosion of responsibility<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The problem is that, along with trauma<\/a>, the sense of shared responsibilit<\/strong>y may also weaken. When someone can say, \u201cthe system classified the target that way,\u201d or \u201cthat was the algorithm,\u201d the human being gains a convenient buffer behind which his own conscience can hide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For centuries, war, despite all its brutality, contained a certain human brake<\/strong>. A soldier could break down, refuse an order, feel remorse, look the enemy in the eye \u2014 even if that enemy remained an enemy. These \u201cweaknesses\u201d \u2014 fear, empathy, guilt \u2014 sometimes worked as natural barriers against excessive violence. Machines have no such limits. They do not suffer psychological collapse, do not hesitate, and do not refuse to carry out an instruction. Artificial intelligence in war acts with precision and without emotion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is easier to sentence an enemy you cannot see<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Military psychologists have shown for years that physical and technological distance \u2014 from the rifle, through the aircraft, to the drone \u2014 lowers the moral barrier to using force<\/strong>. Autonomous systems introduce a new level of that distance. A human being can be reduced to the role of a system administrator who \u201conly initiates the process.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The decision to kill becomes increasingly remote and abstract. The operator no longer has to track the target for long minutes. He does not see the consequences of his action in real time in the same way a fighter pilot or sniper once did. One click is enough \u2014 and the algorithm takes over the rest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Delegating the decision to attack to machines undermines the moral structure of decision-making<\/strong>. A soldier or operator who can say that the system made the decision instead of him can more easily cut himself off from the consequences of his actions. This changes not only the psychology of the individual, but also the cultural imagination of guilt and responsibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Who is responsible for a system\u2019s mistake?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This becomes most dramatic in moments of error. If an autonomous drone mistakes a civilian car for a military vehicle, the classical model of responsibility begins to crumble<\/strong>. Until now, it was possible to trace the chain of command: to determine who gave the order, whether procedures were followed, and whether negligence had occurred.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the world of autonomous systems, that chain is cut by the \u201cblack box\u201d of machine learning, where decisions are made in a way that even the creators cannot fully explain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Guilt spreads across the entire network: from the engineer who trained the model on imperfect data, to the company that sold the system, to the commander who deployed it, and the state that decided such a margin of error was acceptable. The more decisions we hand over to algorithms, the more the link between a specific person and a specific act of violence dissolves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In practice, this creates the risk that, in the event of tragedy, no one will bear full responsibility. And the absence of responsibility <\/strong>is one of the most dangerous catalysts of violence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n