The military's primary incentive is to use weapons that are effective and reliable, as soldiers' lives depend on it. This inherent conservatism acts as a strong filter against deploying unproven or unpredictable AI systems, making them slower, not faster, to adopt bleeding-edge technology in life-or-death situations.

There is no point of AI dominance where a nation becomes immune to safety risks. For both the U.S. and China, every advance in model capability inherently increases national vulnerability to misuse, accidents, or attacks, linking the two concepts inextricably.

Debates over systems like Israel's 'Lavender' often focus on the AI. However, the more critical issue may be the human-defined 'rules of engagement'—specifically, what level of algorithmic confidence (e.g., 55% accuracy) leadership deems acceptable to authorize a strike. This is a policy problem, not just a technology one.

The greatest risk to integrating AI in military systems isn't the technology itself, but the potential for one high-profile failure—a safety event or cyber breach—to trigger a massive regulatory overcorrection, pushing the entire field backward and ceding the advantage to adversaries.

The U.S. military's principle of using precise, minimal force requires developing highly sophisticated AI. In contrast, adversaries like Russia and China, who employ a "fire and forget" doctrine and tolerate civilian casualties, face a much lower technical bar for deploying autonomous systems.

Contrary to the 'killer robots' narrative, the military is cautious when integrating new AI. Because system failures can be lethal, testing and evaluation standards are far stricter than in the commercial sector. This conservatism is driven by warfighters who need tools to work flawlessly.

The most dangerous phase of AI in warfare is when humans are removed from the decision-making loop. Once one adversary adopts fully autonomous weapons, others will be forced to do the same to remain competitive, creating an unavoidable and terrifying technological arms race.

The US military is less concerned about its own AI going rogue and more worried that adversaries like China, who distrust their own generals due to graft or incompetence, will fully automate military decision-making to eliminate human risk, creating a dangerous strategic imbalance.

While China's official doctrine on responsible military AI appears similar to that of the U.S., the real concern stems from its political structure. An autocratic regime's incentive to centralize power by removing human decision-makers could lead it to deploy unsafe AI systems, regardless of official policy.