Military robots are either autonomous or remotely controlled machines designed for various defense-related tasks, ranging from transportation to search and rescue, and even offensive operations. In the last ten years, there has been significant progress in developing advanced robotic systems for military use. Many of these systems are adaptations of commercial technologies, which have become more sophisticated, affordable, and accessible. NATO countries, along with China and Russia, are actively working to deploy large numbers of expendable autonomous systems across multiple domains. Since much of the technology powering these military drones was originally developed for civilian purposes, it is both widely accessible and cost-effective. We are already seeing the widespread deployment of various robotic systems, including armed unmanned ground vehicles, transport robots, search and rescue robots, mine-clearing robots, firefighting robots, and surveillance and reconnaissance robots. Ukrainian tech firms such as DevDroid and Wild Hornets have demonstrated the remarkable effectiveness of their uncrewed, autonomous systems in the modern battlefield. Rescue robots that are being widely used these days are like superheroes when things get really bad, you know, places where it’s just too dangerous for people to go. They can find folks trapped in rubble or toxic areas, which is amazing because it means we lose fewer people. Plus, they send back info that helps rescue teams figure out the best way to get everyone out safely. Think of it, we can send them into places where there’s radiation or nasty chemicals, stuff that would be really harmful to us. They don’t get tired or scared like we do, so they can work faster and save more lives. Sometimes, we’re steering them from a safe distance, but other times, they can even think for themselves and get the job done.
Autonomous military systems are no longer limited to major global powers; smaller and mid-sized nations are also beginning to adopt them. The U.S. military, for instance, aims to deploy thousands of autonomous weapons systems within the next two years to counter China’s rising influence. Defense contractors argue that the biggest challenge isn’t the technology itself but overcoming outdated procurement processes that hinder rapid acquisition and delay delivery to troops.
Drones are being utilized wherever they can provide a strategic edge. Whether it’s heavy weapon platforms, mine-laying operations, or reconnaissance missions, drones are proving their worth. On the battlefield, they could function similarly to how Native Americans used decoys to lure enemies into firing at false targets while the real threat remained hidden. Light infantry units could use drones equipped with cameras and advanced programming to scout ahead and warn squads of potential dangers. In urban combat, drones could serve as remote weapon platforms or be sent into buildings ahead of human troops.
The push to develop humanoid robots stems from the idea that the world is designed for human forms, and automating these forms could revolutionize robotics. However, using humanoid robots in military applications may not be the best idea, and not for the reasons you might expect. Setting aside the technical challenges for a moment, let’s consider practicality. First, vehicles: why use a humanoid robot when a drone could perform the same task more efficiently? There’s no real benefit to having a humanoid robot operate a tank when a fully autonomous drone tank would be cheaper and simpler. Second, bipedal movement is far less efficient than tracked systems. Ground-based tasks can be accomplished more effectively and affordably by small, tank-like drones. This is the same reason mechs aren’t practical in real life. If legs are absolutely necessary, four legs are still better than two. Third, humans will still be needed in the field to command and maintain these robots, even if they aren’t directly engaging in combat. Tasks requiring complex decision-making and dexterity will likely remain in human hands. Fourth, why opt for a bulky humanoid robot when you could deploy a faster, more heavily armored, and more heavily armed system that doesn’t have vulnerable components like a head, can hide more effectively, and won’t trip or fall? In general, purpose-built drones will almost always outperform humanoid robots in combat while being more cost-effective to deploy and maintain. The advantages of humanoid robots simply don’t justify their high costs.
That said, humanoid robots do have some potential benefits. For one, many military environments—cities, buildings, and vehicles—are designed for humans. A humanoid robot can navigate these spaces without requiring significant modifications. Additionally, they can use the same weapons, vehicles, and tools as human soldiers, eliminating the need for specialized equipment. These robots can seamlessly integrate into human teams, working alongside soldiers, communicating effectively, and coordinating movements. This level of synergy is crucial for missions requiring close collaboration between humans and robots.
Most military robots face limitations due to communication bandwidth constraints and vulnerability to electronic jamming. While advancements in navigation autonomy and satellite communications have improved their performance, challenges remain. Recent conflicts, such as Russia’s war in Ukraine, have shown that the technology is ready for real-world use but still has room for improvement. For example, Russia attempted to deploy a squadron of teleoperated unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) armed with grenade launchers, but many were jammed, immobilized, and destroyed by Ukrainian artillery. However, some managed to evade jamming, demonstrating the potential for resilience.
Optimists believe that robots can be programmed to follow strict rules of engagement, potentially making them more reliable than humans in the chaos of combat. Pessimists, on the other hand, argue that not all scenarios can be anticipated, and robots might misinterpret situations, leading to unintended attacks. This concern is valid. When one side in a conflict has little to lose—only money and replaceable hardware—the incentive to avoid war diminishes. In the past, the high human cost of war, both during and after conflicts, served as a deterrent to prevent excessive violence. However, if a nation can wage war without risking human lives, it may feel emboldened to pursue conquest without facing meaningful resistance.