Military AI and the Urgency of Guardrails 

Syllabus: GS3/Artificial Intelligence/Defence

Context

• India abstained from signing a pledge to govern the deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) in warfare at the third global summit on Responsible Artificial Intelligence in the Military Domain (REAIM).

About

• About a third of the participating countries signed the ‘Pathways to Action’ declaration. 
• The United States, India, and China were among those that did not. 
• The previous summit saw 60 countries sign a document outlining a blueprint for action.
  • This year, that number decreased considerably, with only 35 of 85 countries signing the declaration. 
  • The drop indicates some of the challenges in governing military AI that affect states’ commitments. 

Arguments in Favour of Deploying AI in Warfare

• Enhanced Precision and Reduced Collateral Damage: AI-enabled systems (e.g., autonomous drones, smart missiles) use real-time data analytics and image recognition to improve target identification, thereby reducing civilian casualties and unintended destruction.
• Faster Decision-Making in Modern Battlefields: AI can process vast volumes of battlefield data (satellite feeds, sensors, cyber inputs) in seconds, enabling quicker tactical decisions in high-speed warfare environments.
• Reduced Risk to Soldiers: Deployment of AI-powered unmanned systems minimizes direct human exposure in high-risk operations.
• Cyber and Information Warfare Capabilities: AI strengthens cyber defence mechanisms by detecting malware and cyber threats in real time and can also enhance offensive cyber capabilities.
• Strategic Deterrence: Advanced AI-enabled weapon systems can enhance deterrence credibility, similar to how technological superiority influenced strategic balances during the Cold War.
• Adaptation to New-Age Warfare: Modern conflicts increasingly involve hybrid warfare, AI enables militaries to stay technologically competitive in evolving security environments.

Arguments Against

• Ethical and Moral Concerns: Autonomous weapons may violate principles of humanity and dignity under international humanitarian law (IHL).
• Accountability: In case of wrongful deaths or war crimes, it is unclear who should be held responsible, existing frameworks like the United Nations and the Geneva Conventions were designed primarily for human decision-makers.
• Risk of Civilian Casualties Due to Algorithmic Errors: AI systems may misidentify targets due to biased data, flawed algorithms, or technical glitches, leading to unintended harm.
• Vulnerability to Cyber Attacks and Hacking: AI-driven systems can be hacked, manipulated, or spoofed, turning advanced weapons against their own operators.
• Technological Dependence and System Failures: Over-reliance on AI can create systemic vulnerabilities if systems malfunction, face power disruptions, or encounter unexpected scenarios.

Way Ahead

• Support for Responsible Use: India supports the responsible and ethical deployment of AI in warfare, emphasizing compliance with International Humanitarian Law and meaningful human control under discussions at the United Nations.
• Opposition to Immediate Legally Binding Ban on LAWS: India considers a legally binding treaty on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) as “premature,” citing lack of definitional clarity and the rapidly evolving nature of AI technologies.
  • With growing investments in AI R&D, India seeks regulatory flexibility to ensure that global rules do not hinder indigenous technological development.
• Preference for a Non-Binding Normative Framework: India favours a principle-based, non-binding global framework focused on accountability, transparency, and state responsibility before moving towards a binding regime.

Source: TH