AI in combat: When humans are in the loop, but not in control

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists | Eva-Nour Repussard

US Central Command utilized artificial intelligence during Operation Epic Fury against Iran in March 2026 to compress task processing times from days to seconds. While military leadership maintains that human operators retain final strike authorization, operational efficacy requires far more than nominal inclusion in target selection. Rapid procurement timelines, such as NATO's six-month acquisition of Palantir's Maven Smart System, risk bypassing essential technological oversight mechanisms.

In Ukraine, the Saker Scout drone demonstrates severe target classification limits by recognizing general military hardware without distinguishing friendly units from hostile forces. Tactical speed risks overwhelming human cognitive capacity. Without continuous tradecraft training comparable to complex platforms like the AEGIS Combat System, operators risk falling into automated compliance under high-volume targeting tempos. Organizational governance structures must therefore reconcile rapid algorithmic processing with the procedural time and verification mechanisms required to sustain meaningful human judgment.

Comment

Algorithmic acceleration within sensor-to-shooter chains fundamentally alters traditional command and control hierarchies. When platforms like the Maven Smart System process intelligence feeds in seconds, command authority shifts implicitly from human operators to the automated data pipeline. The resulting decision compression forces battle staff into passive concurrence rather than deliberate evaluation.

This structural speed creates a second-order risk where supervisory personnel become legal safeguards for algorithmic errors without possessing the time required to audit raw intelligence. During high-density engagements with the AEGIS Combat System, time-compressed operators demonstrated a consistent tendency toward automation bias when overriding targeting outputs. Consequently, rapid operational deployments of the Maven Smart System systematically reduce human control to a post-hoc legal fiction during large-scale combat operations.

Strategic Question for Discussion

If platforms like the Maven Smart System compress sensor-to-shooter cycles to seconds, how can joint force commanders maintain genuine legal and ethical accountability without reintroducing the operational latencies the technology was deployed to eliminate?

The available evidence points toward an inescapable trade-off between operational velocity and meaningful oversight within automated command structures. When processing speeds are prioritised during high-intensity conflict, human supervision inevitably deteriorates into rubber-stamping, as established during complex AEGIS Combat System engagements. Consequently, effective accountability will likely shift away from real-time operator intervention toward pre-mission algorithmic auditing and rigorous procurement testing.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

Read the original article