[ecnerwala]

Consider the statement "Autonomous weapons are inevitable" carefully. What it means is, any state actor can potentially invest in tech to develop these type of weapons and succeed in a few years. In other words autonomous weapons are within striking distance of technological progress (as opposed to, say, human landing on Mars.)

With the above information, what would you do, if you were a state actor of an advanced country? Surely, (1) you either want to develop these yourself, or (2) ensure that nobody else develops them. (2) can be achieved by international treaties, but the question is whether it can be enforced. If state actors don't trust option (2), then the only option left is (1).

[cout]

There are more than two options. Some other options include building defenses against such weapons or actively working to subvert the other side's building process.

[ecnerwala]

Okay - Without understanding a specific tech, would it be possible to defend against it? And subversion may not be possible against certain countries. I would rather have these type of weapons developed by countries ruled by democracy.

[Aeronwen]

Also, sending wave after wave of your own men at them until the killbots reached their pre-programmed kill limit and shut down.

[ecnerwala]

I am assuming this is a joke, but if it isn't, then guess which countries have/don't have the manpower to be thrown at killbots :P