War

It's increasingly hard to assign blame on the modern battlefield.

The ethics behind international law are very clear.

Provocation and proportionality matter.

"Killer robots" are no longer make-believe.

How far can complicity rightfully be extended?

How can we tame the final frontier?

AI's new military role rests on a false appearance of credibility.

Are we justified in drawing lots and calling numbers?

On what can we ground the rules of engagement?

Defining the purpose of aid is the first step to debating a limit.

Which strategy produces a safer world?

How should we weigh the potential consequences of our decision?

On what grounds could their use be justified?

Might Carl Schmitt be the key to deciphering Russia's politics?

Should we entrust robot soldiers with the freedom to search-and-destroy?

At what point do acts of aggression violate the norms of permissible wartime conduct?

How might the prospect of nuclear war change our bearing in regard to that final hour?

Cognitive biases make it easy to lose sight of our goal in risk assessment.

Why should military action aimed at our enemies' top brass be a stratagem that remains off the table?

How should we evaluate alternative strategies of engagement when the levels of uncertainty and risk remain so high?