[CoffeeDregs]

    Does the US not have regulations about UAVs automatically firing of weaponry?

Even if we do have such regulations, I doubt they'll last long. We'll have to respond in kind once China, Russia, Iran, etc start developing fully automated weapons systems. When Russia can send 1,000 aircraft into a theater because they only require 10% the personnel and we can only send 100 aircraft because we require human operators, the pressure is going to be pretty intense be fully automated. And, even if automation doesn't increase capacity, automation will reduce reaction times, thereby providing other benefits.

    Allowing robots to automatically fire ordnance seems something congress would
    legislate against -- or at least I hope so.

Victory in [symmetric] warfare is already largely dependent on economic advantage, but future war will be entirely determined by economic strength: assuming similar levels of technology, my coalition wins, for example, if we can field 10,000 automated aircraft and your coalition can only field 8,000. I would expect Congress to legislate against this; when China develops fully automated systems and starts deploying them, I would expect Congress to gut those regulations or to let the DoD proceed quietly with developing a to-be-held-in-reserve software update for full automation.

I agree this is not a good outcome, but I'm not sure how the world can avoid it.

[maxerickson]

Do supervised drones make sense in a symmetric war? Missiles cost roughly an order of magnitude less than a drone (and can be launched in large numbers from the ground), so I wonder what the value of sending drones into a well defended airspace would be.

edit: added 'supervised', because a missile is a sort of drone.