Artificial intelligence is being hailed as a game-changer for reducing civilian casualties in warfare. Proponents argue that AI-powered systems can enhance compliance with international humanitarian laws (IHL) by identifying civilian populations, guiding precision strikes, and minimizing collateral damage. This vision of "humane" warfare, driven by algorithms and data, is as seductive as it is controversial.

But can machines truly navigate the moral complexities of war? Critics argue that the reliance on AI for non-combatant harm reduction risks creating a false sense of security, obscuring deeper ethical dilemmas and perpetuating the normalization of conflict. As AI takes a larger role in warfare, it’s time to confront the uncomfortable truth: are we outsourcing morality to machines?

The Promise of AI in Civilian Protection

Supporters of AI in warfare emphasize its potential to reduce the fog of war. AI systems can process vast amounts of data from satellites, drones, and battlefield sensors to identify military targets with unprecedented precision.

1. Target Identification: Machine learning algorithms can distinguish between combatants and civilians by analyzing behavioral patterns, geolocation data, and heat signatures.
2. Precision Strikes: AI-guided munitions promise to limit damage by targeting enemy combatants with pinpoint accuracy.
3. Real-Time Decision Support: AI can warn commanders of the likelihood of civilian casualties in specific operations, allowing them to adjust their tactics accordingly.

For militaries committed to adhering to IHL, these capabilities offer a compelling way to minimize harm while achieving strategic objectives.

The Perils of "Humane" Warfare

While the promise of AI-driven harm reduction is appealing, the reality is far more complex. Critics warn that relying on AI for civilian protection introduces new risks and moral hazards that could undermine its intended benefits.

1. The Fallacy of Perfect Precision
   AI systems are only as reliable as the data they are trained on, and that data is often incomplete or biased. Inaccurate inputs can lead to tragic mistakes, such as misidentifying a civilian gathering as an enemy assembly.For example, during the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, a drone strike mistakenly targeted a civilian vehicle, killing an aid worker and children. While AI wasn’t solely to blame, such incidents highlight the danger of over-reliance on imperfect systems.
2. Dehumanizing Decision-Making
   Delegating harm reduction to AI risks dehumanizing the very people it seeks to protect. Algorithms cannot understand cultural nuances, intent, or the moral weight of their decisions. A machine can calculate probabilities, but it cannot weigh the ethical significance of collateral damage.
3. Accountability in the Algorithmic Age
   When AI systems fail, who is held accountable? The programmer? The commander? The machine itself? This lack of clear accountability creates a dangerous precedent, where civilian harm can be dismissed as an unfortunate "system failure."
4. The Normalization of Conflict
   By reducing civilian casualties, AI could make war more palatable to policymakers and the public. If war is seen as cleaner and less costly in human terms, it may become easier to justify—and harder to end.

The Ethical Paradox

AI’s role in harm reduction creates a paradox: while it seeks to make warfare more ethical, it also raises profound ethical dilemmas.

• Is AI Truly Neutral? AI systems reflect the values of their creators. Decisions about what constitutes a "threat" or an "acceptable risk" are inherently subjective and may embed cultural or political biases.
• Does AI Undermine Human Responsibility? By providing an illusion of precision, AI could lead commanders to make riskier decisions, believing the technology will mitigate harm.
• Can AI Be Trusted in Complex Scenarios? No algorithm can fully account for the chaos and unpredictability of war. In dynamic situations, AI’s limitations could lead to catastrophic errors.

The Role of International Humanitarian Law

Adherence to IHL is a cornerstone of ethical warfare, mandating the protection of civilians and the proportional use of force. While AI can assist in meeting these obligations, it also challenges the very principles of IHL.

1. Proportionality and Necessity
   AI may excel at calculating probabilities, but it cannot determine whether a strike is proportional or necessary. These are fundamentally human judgments that require moral reasoning.
2. Transparency and Accountability
   IHL requires transparency in military operations, but AI systems often operate as "black boxes," with their decision-making processes opaque even to their developers. This lack of transparency complicates efforts to ensure compliance with the law.
3. The Risk of Asymmetric Applications
   While some nations may use AI to uphold IHL, others could exploit it to commit atrocities more efficiently. The lack of global standards for AI in warfare exacerbates this risk.

A Path Forward: Balancing Promise and Peril

To ensure that AI contributes to harm reduction without undermining ethical principles, several safeguards are needed:

1. Human Oversight
   AI systems must augment, not replace, human decision-making. Commanders should retain ultimate responsibility for evaluating and authorizing actions.
2. Rigorous Testing and Validation
   AI systems must undergo extensive testing to minimize errors and ensure reliability in diverse scenarios. Independent oversight is critical to verify compliance with IHL.
3. Global Standards and Regulations
   International agreements must establish clear rules for the use of AI in warfare, including accountability mechanisms and restrictions on fully autonomous weapons.
4. Transparency in Design and Deployment
   Militaries and developers must prioritize explainability, ensuring that AI systems are auditable and their decision-making processes transparent.
5. Public Engagement and Ethical Debate
   Civil society must play a role in shaping the ethical boundaries of AI in warfare. Open debates can help ensure that technological advances align with humanitarian values.

Conclusion: Can AI Make War More Ethical?

The use of AI for non-combatant harm reduction is both a promise and a peril. While these technologies have the potential to save lives and improve adherence to international humanitarian laws, they also introduce significant risks that could undermine those same goals.

The central question is not whether AI can make war more humane—it’s whether we should be relying on machines to make moral decisions at all. War, by its nature, is a profoundly human tragedy. Outsourcing its ethical complexities to algorithms risks stripping it of the very humanity that IHL seeks to preserve.

In the pursuit of harm reduction, we must ensure that the tools we create do not exacerbate the very suffering they aim to alleviate.