Autonomy 2040

Sources

Source register

Footnote numbers throughout the scenario refer to the entries below. External links are identified as such. Verification status is stated per entry: the reported 2024 Ukraine ‘killer drones’ claim is a single-source report with no independent public corroboration, and two citations (Reuters; the House of Lords report PDF) are pending a final human check because automated access is blocked. Factual claims carry a July 2026 evidence cut-off.

  1. [1]

    The Strategic Defence Review 2025 — Making Britain Safer: secure at home, strong abroad

    UK Government · 2025

    Commits the UK to uncrewed systems at scale, faster procurement and a Digital Targeting Web. Distinguish its categories: uncrewed platforms and autonomous navigation are not autonomous engagement.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-strategic-defence-review-2025-making-britain-safer-secure-at-home-strong-abroad/the-strategic-defence-review-2025-making-britain-safer-secure-at-home-strong-abroad (external link)

  2. [2]

    Ambitious, Safe, Responsible: our approach to the delivery of AI-enabled capability in Defence

    UK Ministry of Defence · 2022

    States the UK position: context-appropriate human involvement in weapons that identify, select and attack targets; no intention to develop fully autonomous weapon systems; Article 36 review of all new weapons.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ambitious-safe-responsible-our-approach-to-the-delivery-of-ai-enabled-capability-in-defence/ambitious-safe-responsible-our-approach-to-the-delivery-of-ai-enabled-capability-in-defence (external link)

  3. [3]

    Proceed with Caution: Artificial Intelligence in Weapon Systems (HL Paper 16)

    House of Lords AI in Weapon Systems Committee · 2023

    Parliamentary review of UK policy on AI in weapon systems. Direct fetch is bot-blocked (HTTP 403); URL supplied by the editor and pending final human check.

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5804/ldselect/ldaiwe/16/16.pdf (external link)

  4. [4]

    Government response to the House of Lords AI in Weapon Systems Committee report

    UK Government · 2024

    Restates context-appropriate human involvement and the role of Article 36 weapon reviews, including for iteratively updated systems.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65cb77caa7ded0000c79e526/Government_response_to_the_House_of_Lords_AI_in_Weapon_Systems_Committee_Report.pdf (external link)

  5. [5]

    Autonomous Weapon Systems and International Humanitarian Law — position paper

    International Committee of the Red Cross · 2025–2026

    Defines autonomous weapon systems by autonomous target selection and engagement; recommends prohibitions and constraints organised by function and risk.

    https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/4896_002_Autonomous_Weapons_Systems_-_IHL-ICRC.pdf (external link)

  6. [6]

    Summary of NATO's revised Artificial Intelligence strategy

    NATO · 2024

    Principles of responsible use: lawfulness, responsibility and accountability, explainability and traceability, reliability, governability, bias mitigation.

    https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/2024/07/10/summary-of-natos-revised-artificial-intelligence-ai-strategy (external link)

  7. [7]

    Responsible Procurement of Military Artificial Intelligence

    Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) · 2026

    Argues procurement can operationalise legal and policy commitments if responsibility allocation and independent testing are built into it.

    https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2026-02/0226_milai_procurement.pdf (external link)

  8. [8]

    The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Strategic Stability and Nuclear Risk, Volume I

    Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) · 2019

    Examines how military AI interacts with early warning, escalation dynamics and nuclear risk.

    https://www.sipri.org/publications/2019/research-reports/impact-artificial-intelligence-strategic-stability-and-nuclear-risk-volume-i-euro-atlantic (external link)

  9. [9]

    Technological Evolution on the Battlefield

    Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) · 2025

    Documents the jamming/counter-jamming cycle in Ukraine: fibre-optic tethered control, AI terminal lock-on against pre-identified targets, and AI-assisted detection-to-destruction times of just over 30 seconds.

    https://www.csis.org/analysis/chapter-9-technological-evolution-battlefield (external link)

  10. [10]

    Defining Autonomy: Why Software, Not Drones, Will Decide the Next War

    Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) · 2026

    Finds automatic target recognition and navigation assistance already routine, while 'no one has fielded true end-to-end edge autonomy'; FPV strikes still involve three to six people per drone.

    https://www.csis.org/analysis/defining-autonomy-why-software-not-drones-will-decide-next-war (external link)

  11. [11]

    Germany funds 50,000 strike drones for Ukraine with terminal autonomous tracking (report)

    Reuters · 12 July 2026

    Reported large-scale order putting terminal autonomy into tens of thousands of systems. URL supplied by the editor; direct fetch is blocked for automated access, so the citation is pending final human check.

    https://www.reuters.com/world/germany-funds-50000-strike-drones-ukraine-source-says-2026-07-12/ (external link)

  12. [12]

    First deaths from 'killer drones'

    New Scientist (International Edition, issue of 20 June 2026) · 20 June 2026

    Single-source report: a senior Ukrainian defence-industry figure (drone-maker Alexander Kokhanovskyy) told New Scientist that a 2024 test used fully autonomous drones set to destroy anything in a given area, with confirmed casualties ('We tried it. It's a test. We never implemented it.'). No independent public corroboration: no operational logs, official confirmation, geolocated footage or independent investigation are in the public record. Link is the issue listing; a stable article URL should replace it if verified.

    https://www.zinio.com/publications/new-scientist-international-edition/4437/issues/736661 (external link)

  13. [13]

    Palantir Q4 2023 Business Update (p. 5)

    Palantir Technologies · 2024 · primary document (investor presentation)

    Accessed 17 July 2026. Verification: verified — text extracted from the PDF.

    States verbatim: following its board meeting in Tel Aviv, 'Palantir agreed to a strategic partnership with the Israeli Ministry of Defense to supply Palantir technology to help the country's war effort.' This is the only fact the case study takes from it.

    https://investors.palantir.com/files/Palantir%20Q4%202023%20Business%20Update.pdf (external link)

  14. [14]

    Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Article 25 (individual criminal responsibility)

    International Criminal Court · 1998 (2024 ed.) · treaty text

    Accessed 17 July 2026. Verification: pending human check (publisher blocks automated access; HTTP 403).

    Article 25(1): the Court has jurisdiction over natural persons. The ICC does not prosecute corporations.

    https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/Rome-Statute-eng.pdf (external link)

  15. [15]

    International Criminal Court Act 2001

    UK Parliament (legislation.gov.uk) · 2001 · statute

    Accessed 17 July 2026. Verification: verified.

    Incorporates ICC offences into UK law; the domestic route through which international-crime liability reaches persons in the UK.

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2001/17 (external link)

  16. [16]

    Bribery Act 2010, section 7 — failure of commercial organisations to prevent bribery

    UK Parliament (legislation.gov.uk) · 2010 · statute

    Accessed 17 July 2026. Verification: verified.

    The structural model for a corporate failure-to-prevent offence: entity liability for associated persons' conduct, with a reasonable-procedures defence.

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/23/section/7 (external link)

  17. [17]

    Customary IHL Rule 151 — individual criminal responsibility

    International Committee of the Red Cross (IHL database) · n.d. · customary-law commentary

    Accessed 17 July 2026. Verification: pending human check (page did not render for automated access).

    Individuals are criminally responsible for the war crimes they commit.

    https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule151 (external link)

  18. [18]

    ICRC position on autonomous weapon systems

    International Committee of the Red Cross · 2021 · institutional position

    Accessed 17 July 2026. Verification: verified.

    Recommends prohibiting unpredictable systems and autonomous force against persons, and strictly constraining the remainder.

    https://www.icrc.org/en/document/icrc-position-autonomous-weapon-systems (external link)

  19. [19]

    IAEA safeguards and verification

    International Atomic Energy Agency · n.d. · institutional overview

    Accessed 17 July 2026. Verification: pending human check (publisher blocks automated access; HTTP 402).

    The declarations-plus-inspections model IAWA borrows from — and departs from.

    https://www.iaea.org/topics/safeguards-and-verification (external link)

  20. [20]

    IAEA verification and other safeguards activities

    International Atomic Energy Agency · n.d. · institutional overview

    Accessed 17 July 2026. Verification: pending human check (publisher blocks automated access; HTTP 402).

    Details routine and challenge inspection practice.

    https://www.iaea.org/topics/verification-and-other-safeguards-activities (external link)

  21. [21]

    The Nuremberg industrialist trials (IG Farben; Krupp) — case summaries

    US Holocaust Memorial Museum · n.d. · case summary

    Verification: URL to be added after human verification — do not cite a search page.

    Executives were prosecuted as individuals; the corporate entities themselves were not convicted.

    ⚠ Exact source URL and independent corroboration required before publication.

  22. [22]

    Public Prosecutor v. Frans van Anraat — judgment summary

    ICRC national-practice database / Dutch courts · 2005–2009 · case summary

    Verification: URL to be added after human verification.

    A Dutch businessman convicted of complicity in war crimes for supplying a chemical-weapons precursor with the required knowledge and contribution. A supplier analogue — not a software precedent.

    ⚠ Exact source URL and independent corroboration required before publication.

  23. [23]

    Sweden v. former Lundin executives (alleged complicity in war crimes)

    Swedish Prosecution Authority / Stockholm District Court · ongoing as of July 2026 · case report

    Verification: status to be re-verified at publication; not described as a conviction.

    Proceedings against former executives concerning alleged complicity in grave crimes in Sudan. No verdict is assumed here.

    ⚠ Exact source URL and independent corroboration required before publication.

  24. [24]

    Lafarge proceedings — terrorism financing conviction distinguished from separate complicity litigation

    French courts / US DOJ · 2022–ongoing · case report

    Verification: URL to be added after human verification.

    The company's terrorism-financing case is distinct from separate litigation over alleged complicity in crimes against humanity; the former is not a corporate war-crimes conviction.

    ⚠ Exact source URL and independent corroboration required before publication.