In general terms, lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS), also known as autonomous weapons systems (AWS), are types of military drones or military robots, that can independently search for and engage targets based on programmed constraints and descriptions. As of 2025, most military drones (including unmanned aerial vehicles and unmanned combat aerial vehicles) and military robots are not truly autonomous. LAWs may engage in drone warfare in the air, on land, on water, underwater, or in space.
Definitions In weapons development, the term "autonomous" is somewhat ambiguous and can vary substantially between different scholars, nations and organizations. There is no definition of lethal autonomous weapon systems that is generally agreed upon among different countries. Some of the definitional problems are noted in the UN Secretary-General's report to the General assembly. For instance, some observers think that the word "lethal" should not be used in discussing these advanced weapons because lethality is "an effect of the manner in which a weapon is used" rather than a necessarily innate quality of the weapon." The meaning of "autonomous" also is disputed inasmuch as there are varying degrees of autonomy within existing systems that are commonly thought of as autonomous. The official United States Department of Defense Policy on Autonomy in Weapon Systems (Department of Defense Directive 3000.09) defines an Autonomous Weapon (note that the US tends to refer to "weapon system," not "weapons system") System as one that "...once activated, can select and engage targets without further intervention by a human operator." Heather Roff, a writer for Case Western Reserve University School of Law, describes autonomous weapon systems as "... capable of learning and adapting their 'functioning in response to changing circumstances in the environment in which [they are] deployed,' as well as capable of making firing decisions on their own." The United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on Emerging Technologies in the Area of Letha Autonomous Weapons Systems (GGE) has defined a LAWS as "an integrated combination of one or more weapons and technological components that enable the system to identify and/or select, and engage a target, without intervention by a human user . . . The United States Department of Defense definition of an AWS is more extensive than that of the GGE. DoD Directive 3000.09 is similar to that of the GGE in that it defines an AWS as "a weapon system that, once activated, can select and engage targets without further intervention by an operator." However, the directive goes on to stipulate that its definition "includes, but is not limited to, operator-supervised autonomous weapon systems that are designed to allow operators to override operation of the weapon system, but can select and engage targets without further operator input after activation." The British Ministry of Defence states "Whilst definitions can vary, the key difference is that an automated system is capable of carrying out complicated tasks but is incapable of complex decision-making, whereas an autonomous system is capable of deciding a course of action without depending on human oversight and control." Some nations (such as France) take a restrictive view of what autonomy consists of, defining an AWS "as a fully autonomous' weapon system, meaning that it is 'capable of changing its own rules of operation, particularly as regards target engagement beyond a determined framework of use'" (emphasis added) On the other hand, scholars such as Peter Asaro and Mark Gubrud believe that any weapon system that is capable of releasing a lethal force without the operation, decision, or confirmation of a human supervisor can be deemed autonomous. Nevertheless, a wide array of nations and organizations, such as the US Department of Defense, the International Committee of the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, and AWS critics agree that the essential quality of autonomous weapon systems is that they, "once activated, are capable of selecting and engaging targets without contemporaneous human input. The meaning of autonomy in the weapons context has been made less precise in recent years by some commentators using it interchangeably with Artificial Intelligence (AI). One observer has noted that "reliance on remotely piloted capabilities, uncrewed vehicles, and loitering munitions, with ever-increasing degrees of autonomy (AI enabled or not) . . . are further blurring the lines between AI, autonomy, and military systems . . ."
Automatic defensive systems Some definitions of autonomous weapon systems are broad enough to include land mines and naval mines, simple automatically-triggered lethal weapons that have been in use for centuries. Some current examples of LAWs are automated "hardkill" active protection systems, such as a radar-guided close-in weapon systems (CIWS) used to defend ships that have been in use since the 1970s (e.g., the US Phalanx CIWS). Such systems can autonomously identify and attack oncoming missiles, rockets, artillery fire, aircraft, and surface vessels according to criteria set by the human operator. Similar systems exist for tanks, such as the Russian Arena, the Israeli Trophy, and the German AMAP-ADS. Several types of stationary sentry guns, which can fire at humans and vehicles, are used in South Korea and Israel. Many missile defence systems, such as Iron Dome, also have autonomous targeting capabilities. The main reason for not having a "human in the loop" in these systems is the need for rapid response. They have generally been used to protect personnel and installations against incoming projectiles.
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
