[AI Library] Chapter 31. The LAWS Debate: Who Pulls the Trigger?
Chapter 31. The LAWS Debate: Who Pulls the Trigger?
Autonomous Weapons (LAWS) Debate: Who pulls the trigger? Altitude 30,000 feet, speed Mach 1.2. Outside the canopy it is pitch black, and inside the cockpit the Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) squeaks non-stop. Enemy surface-to-air missile radar bit me. At this moment my finger is on the red button on the control stick. This is the weapon fire button. The cold feel of that gold. My heart is beating like crazy. At this time I ask: Should I pull this trigger? Is the target right? Are there any civilians? Are our troops safe? Hundreds of training sessions and actual battles help me make better decisions. And I decide. firing.
The missile kicks off the rail and flies away. Whatever the outcome, the responsibility is mine. That was the rule I followed for 20 years as a fighter pilot. But now that rule is being shaken. Machines called LAWS (Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems) have appeared on the battlefield. These machines find their targets, track themselves, and destroy themselves without human commands. You might think of the Terminator in a Hollywood movie, but the reality is quieter and scarier. Look at Israel's Harop drone. This thing roams the sky, and when it detects an enemy's radar signal, it rushes in and self-destructs.
There are reports that Turkey's Kargu-2 drone autonomously tracked and attacked retreating soldiers in the Libyan civil war without human control. This is what happened in 2020. It's already 5 years ago. In 2024, the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly adopted a resolution on autonomous weapons of destruction. 166 countries were in favor, and only 3 were against. Belarus, North Korea, Russia. The resolution states that international humanitarian law should apply throughout the entire life cycle of autonomous weapons. In November 2025, 156 countries once again voted in favor of regulating autonomous weapons.
This is proof that the international community is taking this issue seriously. So why is this a problem?
Pulling the trigger is not just a physical act. It's a moral decision. When a medieval knight wielded his sword, he looked his opponent in the eyes. When the opponent surrenders, the sword is raised. The same thing happened when a Roman soldier aimed a gladius. Humans are capable of mercy. I know it's hesitation. Machines don't. When the AI beat the human pilot 5-0 in AlphaDogfight, the AI showed no hesitation. There was no fear, no mercy. There was only a mathematical optimum. The most efficient route to destroy your enemies. What if the other person made a gesture of surrender? The AI wouldn't have noticed.
Unless you have a line in your code that says "recognize surrender gesture". The arguments of those in favor also make sense. They say. “The machine is not tired. It is not afraid. It is not vengeful.” This is true. Human soldiers sometimes make terrible mistakes under the stress of war. Sometimes they kill civilians by mistake, or they break the rules of engagement due to emotions. Machines can follow input rules like a sword. In theory. But war is not a theory. War is chaos. I think about when I was flying over Iraq. There is a man with a gun on the ground. Is he an enemy? Or are you a civilian trying to protect your family?
Or is he a local informant working with our forces? Human pilots see context. Where is the gun pointed, are there children around, is his behavior aggressive or defensive? AI only sees pixels and patterns. We classify the world into 0s and 1s. There is a bigger problem. This means that the threshold for war is lowered. A bloodless war is a sweet temptation for politicians. If you don't have to send a coffin home with a flag, the decision to go to war becomes much easier. If only the broken scrap metal came back, there would be less criticism from the media. States will use force more frequently and more lightly.
An era of endless algorithm disputes may begin. Currently, the international community is in a tense conflict.
On the one hand, there are countries that advocate a complete ban. Countries like Serbia and Kiribati. They say. “Weapons of destruction without human control are an affront to human dignity.” On the other hand, there are countries that are already leading the way in this technology, such as the United States, Russia, and Israel. They argue that existing international law is sufficient. It even rejects the phrase “meaningful human control.” In 2025, the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) created a document called the “Rolling Text.” This is a draft set of regulatory elements that can be agreed upon.
This contains important information. Autonomous weapons must be predictable, traceable, and explainable. A human supervisor must be able to interrupt the system at any time. Deployment in areas densely populated with civilians should be avoided. However, there is still a long way to go to reach an agreement. I ask. What are the qualifications of the person pulling the trigger? As a pilot, I believe that qualification comes with responsibility. When I launch a missile, I bear the weight of the consequences. Sleepless nights, nightmares, lifelong memories. That is the cross of the human warrior. The machine doesn't know its weight.
There is nothing called “guilt” in the code. We can borrow efficiency from machines. But you must not sell your soul.
Kim Kyung-jin
Attorney · Former Member of the National Assembly · AI Policy Researcher
© 2026 Kim Kyung-jin. All rights reserved.