Mobilizing a nation for war and maintaining it in that state is a difficult task. The political machine needs to have enough of the populace on board and committed to such an endeavour. The anticipated casualties of your soldiery and the economic costs to support combat provide a brake against escalation. The time it takes to enlist and train an army, to ramp up the industrial base for a war footing is time where tensions can be deescalated. Once hostilities commence those assumed costs in lives and treasury become real. A nation needs to gird itself against those losses to remain committed. Can the same be said for an automated military that is divorced of public opinion and provides no human cost?
Internal actions are even scarier, do you want a military force in place that has no overriding loyalty to the populace or conscience about inflicting casualties period, let alone among its own people?
On one hand reducing your own casualties via increased automation is an attractive goal, obviously I would much rather a robot eat an IED than lose a soldier.
Still what happens when the risks and costs of conflict are removed? "It is well that war is so terrible — lest we should grow too fond of it"
