Wargaming suggests that instead of flying alongside manned aircraft, unmanned systems are most effective when decoupled. Their best roles are as long-endurance decoys to confuse incoming missiles or as autonomous swarms in a designated kill zone.

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.

The ethical stance of requiring a human in the loop for autonomous weapons faces a serious strategic problem. A weapon system with a human decision-maker will likely lose to a fully autonomous one, forcing a choice between ethics and military effectiveness.

Anduril's autonomous Fury fighter jet flies alongside manned aircraft as a force multiplier. It extends the pilot's sensor and weapons range while taking on high-risk maneuvers. This allows for strategies that involve sacrificing autonomous assets to gain an advantage, without the ethical problem of losing human lives.

Defense tech firm Smack Technologies clarifies the objective is not to remove humans entirely. Instead, AI should handle low-value tasks to free up personnel for critical, high-value decisions. This framework, 'intelligent autonomy,' orchestrates manned and unmanned systems while keeping humans in the loop.

Creating a separate command for drones and autonomy could segregate these capabilities, much like CyberCom. Instead of being integrated into combined arms at the lowest level, they become a resource that operational commanders must request through layers of bureaucracy, hindering agility.

Wargaming revealed a key unanswered question in modern warfare: if an adversary attacks an unmanned US asset, does that act justify a retaliatory strike against their manned forces? There is no consensus on this crucial rule of engagement.

Contrary to the notion of automated warfare, the proliferation of drones is highly manpower-intensive. It requires dedicated units for operation, maintenance, and countering enemy drones. Relying solely on technology creates a single point of failure and doesn't eliminate the need for robust force generation and management.

The policy of keeping a human decision-maker 'in the loop' for military AI is a potential failure point. If the human operator is not meaningfully engaged and simply accepts AI-generated recommendations without critical oversight or due diligence, the system is de facto autonomous, creating a false sense of security and accountability.