UAV Autonomy in Turkey and Around the World: The “Terminator” Debate

Autonomous systems, particularly unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), present both opportunities and challenges for modern warfare. Although they lack the moral compass and flexibility of the human mind, they nonetheless provide great advantages in terms of range, precision, coordination and speed in land, naval and air warfare. The advantages of their relative autonomy removes certain limitations, particularly in the sphere of UAVs, both in Turkey elsewhere, while the same autonomy gives rise to the “Terminator” debate with regard to lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS)—often called “killer robots”—theoretically capable of targeting and firing without human supervision or interference. The purpose of this article is to help elucidate the challenges posed by the autonomy of the UAVs, and to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of UAV systems, particularly the debates, reservations and criticisms about handing over authority to unmanned systems, especially given that Turkey has been eagerly and successfully working to develop this technology. As the technology continues to evolve, becoming more efficient and expanding into new areas of application, the challenges in determining the level of autonomy that LAWS should have are likely to increase. Although it is not easy to articulate the balance between the human and the machine in the division of authority, the best solution might be an efficient collaboration between the human mind and artificial intelligence (AI). Also, the law of armed conflict (LOAC) should be developed sufficiently and flexibly to regulate this kind of weaponry, particularly since, unlike nuclear arsenals that are kept under the strict control of states, it is easier to access and develop autonomous weapon systems (AWS). Therefore, permanent measures are needed in order to ensure that development in this field is consistent and ethical with respect to international humanitarian law.