At the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) Annual Meeting & Exposition in Washington, D.C., a new chapter in military technology is taking center stage. On October 10, 2025, Axon Vision announced it will showcase its artificial intelligence-based counter-uncrewed aerial system (C-UAS), a platform designed to detect and neutralize aerial threats—including hostile drones—in real time. According to the company’s statement, this C-UAS platform leverages the power of AI to automatically identify and engage threats, while offering operators a comprehensive situational awareness across multiple military platforms.
The rise of artificial intelligence in modern warfare is no longer the stuff of science fiction. From wargaming simulations to real-world defense systems, AI is rapidly reshaping how militaries prepare for, and respond to, evolving threats. Axon Vision’s C-UAS solution, described as platform-agnostic, is already fielded by several military users, signaling that this isn’t just a prototype—it’s a working system already in the hands of defense forces. Attendees at AUSA can see the technology in action at Booth #703, where Axon Vision is exhibiting alongside Leonardo DRS.
But as the military world embraces AI for its speed and efficiency, concerns are mounting about the implications of delegating critical decisions to machines. Last month, Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Penny Wong, addressed the United Nations Security Council with a stark warning about the risks posed by AI in warfare. While she acknowledged that artificial intelligence "heralds extraordinary promise" in fields such as health and education, her tone shifted when discussing its use in nuclear weapons and unmanned systems. "Nuclear warfare has so far been constrained by human judgement. By leaders who bear responsibility and by human conscience. AI has no such concern, nor can it be held accountable. These weapons threaten to change war itself and they risk escalation without warning," Wong said, as reported by The Conversation.
Wong’s remarks reflect a growing anxiety: will AI fundamentally change the nature of warfare? And if something goes wrong, who—or what—should be held responsible? These questions are at the heart of an ongoing public debate, fueled by media reports of "killer robots" and autonomous weapon systems that could, in theory, make life-and-death decisions without human oversight.
The reality, however, is more nuanced. As The Conversation explains, artificial intelligence is not a singular technology but an umbrella term that covers everything from large language models to computer vision and neural networks. In the military realm, applications of AI range from training tools—like wargaming simulations—to more contentious uses, such as decision-support systems for targeting. A notable example is the Israel Defence Force’s use of the "Lavender" system, which reportedly helps identify suspected members of Hamas or other armed groups. While such systems can process vast amounts of data quickly, the ultimate decision to act still rests with human commanders.
This brings us to the so-called "accountability gap." Critics argue that as AI systems become more complex and autonomous, it becomes harder to assign blame if something goes awry. Yet, as The Conversation points out, this dilemma is not unique to AI. Legacy weapons like unguided missiles or landmines have long operated without direct human control at the moment of impact, but responsibility for their use has always been traced back to human decision-makers. The same logic should apply to AI: "Like any other complex system, AI systems are designed, developed, acquired and deployed by humans. For military contexts, there is the added layer of command and control, a hierarchy of decision making to achieve military objectives. AI does not exist outside of this hierarchy."
Indeed, the notion that AI systems could make independent life-and-death decisions is, according to experts, a misunderstanding of both the technology and the military chain of command. While AI can process information and make recommendations at speeds no human could match, the final responsibility—both moral and legal—remains with the people who design, deploy, and operate these systems. "AI weapon systems used for targeting are not making decisions on life and death. The people who consciously chose to use that system in that context are," The Conversation notes.
Regulation, then, is less about controlling the technology itself and more about overseeing the humans involved at every stage of the AI system’s lifecycle. From initial planning and design, through development and deployment, to eventual retirement, humans make conscious choices that shape how these systems are used. "What this lifecycle structure creates is a chain of responsibility with clear intervention points. This means, when an AI system is deployed, its characteristics – including its faults and limitations – are a product of cumulative human decision making," experts argue.
For Axon Vision, the emphasis is on providing tools that enhance, rather than replace, human decision-making. The company’s C-UAS platform is intended to boost situational awareness and reduce response times, but it still relies on trained operators to interpret its data and make the final call. This approach aligns with broader trends in military technology, where AI is seen as a force multiplier—helping humans do their jobs better, faster, and more safely, rather than handing over the reins entirely.
Of course, the deployment of AI in warfare is not without its challenges. As new systems like Axon Vision’s C-UAS become more widespread, militaries will need to grapple with questions about transparency, oversight, and ethical use. International bodies such as the United Nations are already debating whether new treaties or regulations are needed to govern the use of AI in armed conflict. The stakes are high: as Penny Wong warned, "These weapons threaten to change war itself and they risk escalation without warning."
Still, some experts caution against overstating the novelty of these challenges. After all, every major advance in military technology—from the crossbow to the atomic bomb—has prompted similar debates about responsibility and control. The key, they argue, is to ensure that robust systems of accountability remain in place, so that the humans behind the machines are always answerable for their actions.
As attendees at AUSA get a firsthand look at Axon Vision’s cutting-edge C-UAS system, the broader conversation about AI in warfare is sure to continue. The technology may be new, but the fundamental questions—about judgment, responsibility, and the human cost of conflict—are as old as war itself.
