Lethal Autonomous Weapons: What Are They and How Do We Address Them?

By: Charlotte Sparling

November 25, 2024

What used to be a myth is now a reality. Lethal autonomous weapons (LAWs), at their core, are weapons that act and make lethal decisions without human intervention, effectively thinking on their own. They are similar to drones but lack the crucial element of human oversight. However, not even the international community has a clear definition of what they are, contributing to the challenge of how to adequately address them. 

The development of these weapons poses several major concerns that must be addressed.

First, there are serious questions about LAWs violating international law. UN Secretary-General António Guterres argues these weapons are morally concerning and violate International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Two of the core elements of IHL are distinction and accountability. LAWs act without human oversight; there is no human verification of targets. Facial recognition is one method to identify targets but opens the door to ethnic cleansing. Furthermore, like any other technology, LAWs will inevitably malfunction, resulting in the question of who is then accountable. If a robot accidentally kills the wrong target, is the machine accountable?

Second, the question of regulation is uncertain and pressing. There is no clear regulation of LAWs, yet their potential to cause such sweeping impacts makes their regulation imperative. To prevent crises, standards must be established. The international community has recognized the importance of discussing this issue, but what exactly those steps would be is unclear. 

Despite this pessimistic outlook, regulation is possible. Land mines, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons were all regulated in some manner. There is no reason why the same could not be done for LAWs, but such regulation must first be preceded by establishment of a solid definition. 

The truth is that LAWs are here. We must move forward, acknowledge, and act accordingly. In the Russia-Ukraine war, there has been talk of Russia deploying weapons with some autonomous capabilities. Turkey, Israel, Russia, and South Korea have reportedly deployed similar weapons. Both the US and China are also investing heavily in this technology. No one wants to be the one without the newest and shiniest toys.

Part of what makes LAWs of interest is their life-preserving abilities. Without having to send troops who are often clouded by emotions into risky situations, LAWs can be more accurate, mitigate the loss of life, and reduce damage to the surrounding areas. It is important to recognize these benefits as the march of innovation cannot be halted. 

Ukraine, recognizing these benefits, has invested heavily in autonomous drones and similar technologies. In a war that is not likely to end in a decisive Ukrainian win, any methods to minimize the sacrifice of Ukrainian lives are imperative. While Ukraine’s weapons still require human intervention, they are only one step off from LAWs. How the war develops with these weapons will likely serve as a turning point for the future of autonomous warfare.

On the global diplomatic scale, opinions are mixed. The UN and many countries support a full ban on LAWs or regulation at a minimum. The US supports regulation over a complete ban. China and Russia, meanwhile, have yet to clearly indicate their positions. 

Instead of an outright ban, the solution is to establish regulations. By embracing the reality that LAWs will likely play a crucial role in future warfare, guidelines can help shape the role this technology plays while simultaneously reaping its benefits. Ignoring these weapons could lead to their misuse and make humanitarian violations far more likely. The first step in regulation is to create a singular definition of what LAWs are. It is through these efforts that the international community can adequately address ethical concerns. 

Climate Change Threatens National Security

By: Charlotte Sparling

In the latest UN climate report, the Secretary-General starkly warned that we are in the midst of  “a ‘code red for humanity.’ ” The climate is collapsing and national security is at risk. While green energy is the solution, and investment into the sector is crucial to protect national security, this is not a simple fix.

Globally, accounting for 80% of energy production, 75% of greenhouse gas emissions, and nearly 90% of carbon dioxide emissions, fossil fuels are the largest contributors to climate change. Consequently, the World Health Organization has reported that around 99% of the world’s population breathe in air that has exceeded safe air quality levels, causing millions of deaths a year and $2.9 trillion in health and economic issues. 

This climate crisis extends beyond health concerns and into national security threats. Before Russia’s war on Ukraine, over 40% of Europe’s imported gas and roughly 25% of their oil came from Russia. When Russia turned off the tap, oil and gas prices skyrocketed. 

Energy is fundamental to a successful country. The power and influence fossil fuel exporting countries have over their tethered receiving countries, threatens the recipient’s national security. Hospitals, schools, homes, businesses, and governmental activities are all reliant upon energy. Cut that off, and the country is at its knees.  

Yet, Europe recognized their Achilles heel was their fossil fuel reliance, and shifted faster towards green energy. As they moved, so too did the world, which sped up the global transition towards green energy upwards of five to ten years.

Green is on the rise; out of the renewable energies, solar, wind, and hydropower are the three most promising. This transition to renewable energy is imperative, but the solution is by no means simple.

As a cheap and abundant source of energy, solar appears to be the perfect solution. If utilized to its full extent, one hour of sunlight generates more energy than the world consumes in a year. Yet, solar contributes only 3.6% to electricity production globally. This huge gap in utilizing solar is largely due to how expensive and difficult it is to store the energy. 

Wind, another cheap energy source, also is inefficient with storing excess energy. Simultaneously, wind turbines cause environmental concerns, such as bird collisions, habitat disruptions, and noise pollution. 

Hydropower outproduces all other forms of renewable energy in US electricity production and begins to address the energy storage problem. In these systems, water is pumped up to a higher elevation, from an initial energy source, and is released downhill through a turbine that generates energy when necessary. However, hydropower systems have problems of their own, including specific geographical needs, access to an energy source, and high capital inputs.

While pumped hydropower systems are one approach to the storage issue, batteries are another. The most common option is lithium-ion batteries. Unfortunately, these often utilize fossil fuels in transportation and manufacturing, while also containing nickel and cobalt, which are associated with complications of their own. 

Contaminating the air, water, soil, and natural habitats, nickel mining is extremely costly. The extraction itself produces sulfur dioxide and metal-infused dust. In Indonesia, nickel mining has caused deforestation, water pollution, and human health concerns. 

The mining of cobalt employs unsafe practices, child labor, and unregulated disposal of toxic waste, which causes water and crop pollution. In turn, this destabilizes the local regions and makes them more vulnerable.

The truth is this: no energy source is perfect. Countries must continue to fund research and development to progress this green transition forward. 

Currently, 80% of people live in countries that are net-importers of fossil fuels. To avoid being vulnerable to these countries turning off supply or fossil fuel depletion, green energy should be explored as a safer and a more abundant alternative. However, this assumes green energy is a viable solution, thus stressing the need for more resources to be devoted to solving this issue. 

Simply put, investing in green not only protects the environment, but also releases other countries from the grasp of fossil-fuel producing countries, which, in turn, boosts national security.

THE U.S. MUST TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION TO AID THE SUDANESE HEALTHCARE CRISIS

By: Anna Douglas Piper

Sudan is experiencing a rapidly deteriorating humanitarian crisis. The International Rescue Committee cites the escalating fighting, an economic crisis, and a near collapse of health care services, among other causes. 

The healthcare crisis presents the most urgent problem, and the United States must do more to help.

In April of 2023, conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) erupted into civil war. Though fighting has been concentrated in the capital city of Khartoum, reports of ethnic cleansing exist in other regions. More than 61,000 people have died. 26,000 deaths were a direct result of the violence, while the majority resulted from largely preventable diseases and starvation. 

The Sudanese conflict is the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. According to the World Health Organization, 11 million are in urgent need of life-saving health care. 

The healthcare crisis precedes the conflict, driven by long-term political and economic instability. The problem is compounded by lack of access to food, a key driver of disease. Millions are experiencing malnutrition, and famine was officially declared in the Darfur region in August of 2024. Exacerbated by the fighting, 25.6 million, over half of the population, are in desperate need of aid.

Over 70% of health facilities are currently non-functional. Sudan faces a complete lack of funding, supplies, and staff. Hospitals suffer from targeted attacks as well as repeated looting and occupation from both sides of the conflict.

"The situation in health clinics is beyond words," said Amelie Chbat, who oversees the International Committee of the Red Cross in Sudan. "The injured lack medicines, food, and water, and the elderly, women, and children are without essential treatments like dialysis or diabetes medications. And the situation is deteriorating."

Sudan’s health care system has virtually collapsed. 

The consequences are immeasurable. There is a severe strain on resources, including water, sanitation and hygiene services. Measles has killed more than 1,000 children, while a severe cholera outbreak has led to 8,000 cases and 299 deaths. Malnutrition is rampant, immunization levels are low, and care is nonexistent. Outbreaks will continue to have devastating effects, particularly for the youth. 

Humanitarian organizations have attempted to help, including the IRC, Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), The Red Cross, and more. However, access to the Sudanese has been difficult. Violence and movement restrictions on organizations have constrained aid delivery, especially in the south–where need is highest. The Assessment Capacities Project (ACAPS) rated aid constraints a 5 out of 5 (extreme). 

“The cost of inaction is already unbearable,” said Dr. Tammam Aloudat, president of the MSF Netherlands board. “It can be measured in the tens of thousands of lives lost and the millions of lives that are on the line as we speak.”

The U.S. has contributed financial assistance, food, and medical services to Sudan and neighboring countries. The most recent $424 million package was announced in September 2024, bringing US aid since April 2023 to over $2 billion. However, as diplomacy fails to reduce the conflict, the capacity to target rising needs will continue to fall.

The United States must do more. 

Though U.S. officials claim to be “steadfast in [their] support for the people of Sudan,” they must do more than call on the RSP and SAF to cease hostilities and allow in aid. Existing support is not enough–America must use its global influence to end the crisis. 

International pressure must be increased on the Sudanese forces, and the U.S. can play a major role. Unobstructed aid flow into the country is vital, and solutions are necessary to allow delivery of medical support. The United States can increase support for humanitarian organizations to bolster their presence and create a reliable supply movement into Sudan.

“Sudan and its suffering people have slipped down the world's list of priorities—forgotten by the media, neglected by political will, and overlooked by the humanitarian donor institutions that should be putting this catastrophe front and center,” says Dr. Mohamed Bashir, Sudanese medical staff member.

“Amid all this, I plead with the world: Do not let Sudan slip from your attention. At times, it feels as though no one cares, as if Sudan has been deliberately deprioritized by the global decision makers, pushed aside for other crises.”

“How much longer can we tolerate this inaction?”