Where should a state draw the line when an opponent fires on an automated or uncrewed platform? The absence of a crew can reduce the immediate human risk without removing the need to protect the system or answer repeated attacks. Sending crewed aircraft to guard uncrewed aircraft exposes the paradox: removing people from one platform can still create a new escalation decision involving people elsewhere. States must decide whether restraint after a low-risk loss invites further attacks or whether armed protection makes escalation more likely. Conventional deterrence will demand better judgment as machines alter the human stakes without eliminating them.
Notable Point · 22:34-23:51
Uncrewed systems complicate deterrence
Attacks on uncrewed systems make the threshold for retaliation less obvious and demand more careful escalation judgment.