In an era where robotics and artificial intelligence are advancing at breathtaking speeds, the question arises: will the wars of the future be fought by machines alone, drone against drone, robot against robot and if so, will this lead to fewer human casualties, or to even greater destruction?
The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine offers a grim glimpse of this reality. Drones have become a central weapon of the battlefield. Precision-guided missiles strike infrastructure on a daily basis, while cyberattacks paralyze electricity grids and water systems.
Yet the bloodshed continues.
According to a November 2024 report by Reuters, Ukraine has lost tens of thousands of soldiers: around 70,000 have been killed and around 120,000 have been wounded. In addition, 14,000 civilians have been killed and 36,000 have been wounded. Russia, by Western estimates, has lost between 197,000 and 285,000 troops. Civilian suffering is immense: at least 621 Russian civilians have been killed and and around 789 are missing, with the true figures likely far higher.
Even in an age of advanced and “precise” weaponry, the human toll in this war remains staggering.
Nothing New Here
History reminds us that the issue is far from new. In World War I, without robots, cyber warfare, or smart weapons, more than 20 million people were killed. Artillery barrages, poison gas, and machine guns wreaked havoc, but it was the decisions of political leaders that sealed the fate of millions. In World War II, technology advanced further with tanks, advanced aircraft, and ultimately atomic bombs, and the number of casualties soared to between 70 and 85 million.
The lesson is clear: technology changes the form of warfare, but it does not guarantee fewer deaths.
Even today, it is human motivation that drives wars. Ukrainian soldiers fight to defend their homes, families, and national identity. Many Russian soldiers, by contrast, are sent to the front by an authoritarian government and propelled by relentless propaganda. Robots and autonomous systems may be the tools, but the impulse to fight remains profoundly human.
Yet there is room to imagine a different future. Science and engineering could be directed toward conflict prevention rather than escalation: artificial intelligence that identifies flashpoints before they erupt; robots that monitor and enforce international agreements with transparency; drones that patrol borders to prevent provocations; technological mechanisms designed not to destroy but to facilitate dialogue and communication. If consciously guided, technology could transform from a catalyst of violence into a stabilizer, even a peacekeeper.
But technology alone cannot resolve the dilemmas of war.
Three human factors remain decisive. First, leadership: when women are included at the highest levels of decision-minister prime ministers, presidents, and defense ministers the chances of balance, dialogue, and diplomacy increase. Second, religion: a force that can inflame hatred is also capable of preaching reconciliation and compassion; the direction depends on the choices of religious leaders. Third, education: the next generation must be taught to see others not as eternal enemies but as potential partners. Education for tolerance and empathy is perhaps the most effective antidote to future wars.
The future of warfare will not be determined by technology alone. Robots may save human lives, but just as easily they may obliterate entire cities at the push of a button. The difference will depend on human decisions, those of leaders, educators, religious figures, and citizens alike. The real question is not whether robots will fight robots. The real question is whether we, as human beings, will choose to direct technology toward peace rather than destruction.