The requirement for human responsibility in the use of force is not a new concept created for AI. It is governed by long-standing international humanitarian law and existing military policies. These foundational legal structures apply to all weapons, from bows to AI-drones, ensuring a commander is always accountable.

Counterintuitively, Anduril views AI and autonomy not as an ethical liability, but as a way to better adhere to the ancient principles of Just War Theory. The goal is to increase precision and discrimination, reducing collateral damage and removing humans from dangerous jobs, thereby making warfare *more* ethical.

In "The Art of War," adhering to the "moral law" is a core strategic principle that ensures loyalty in crisis. Buffett applies this by cultivating a reputation for fairness and character. This becomes a competitive advantage, attracting partners and deals that others cannot access, proving ethics are a strategic asset.

Showing mercy to disabled enemy combatants is tactically superior for three reasons: it encourages adversaries to surrender rather than fight to the death; it yields valuable intelligence from prisoners; and it establishes a standard of conduct that protects one's own captured soldiers from reciprocal brutality.

The vision of war fought entirely by robots is unrealistic. In order for conflicts to end, one side must be willing to sue for peace. This decision is typically driven by the painful cost of human lives. A war where only machines are destroyed may lack the necessary human price to create the political will for resolution.

In intense conflicts, short-term ceasefires are frequently a strategic maneuver rather than a genuine move towards peace. While peace talks are publicly highlighted, both sides often use the downtime to rebuild their arsenals and rest their forces, making the truce a tool of war itself.

In conflicts, a critical error is to believe that escalating pressure will automatically force an opponent to back down. This overlooks that for the adversary, the fight may be existential, leaving them no room to retreat and thus leading to a more dangerous conflict.

Against an enemy employing asymmetric warfare, achieving total victory may be impossible without resorting to indiscriminate killing and infrastructure destruction. Since modern Western societies lack the moral appetite for such tactics, decisive military wins become elusive.

In contemporary warfare, authoritarian regimes and non-state actors are unlikely to ever sign a formal surrender. This means victory can no longer be defined by the other side "crying uncle," but must be measured by the successful and sustained degradation of the enemy's capacity to pose a threat.