Militaries accelerate AI use as safeguards lag
The three-day forum, which ended on Thursday, brought together about 2,000 military officers, diplomats and academics from more than 100 countries and organisations. China’s Ministry of National Defence said one discussion track focused on the risks and regulation of military applications of emerging technologies.
Several delegates argued that human judgement must remain central as armed forces deploy autonomous systems, machine-assisted targeting tools and AI-enabled command functions. Jürg Lauber, vice-president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, said growing autonomy in weapons systems made preservation of human judgement and control over the use of force increasingly important.
Pakistan’s Defence Secretary Muhammad Ali said AI was accelerating military decision-making while misinformation and disinformation could erode public trust before governments had time to respond. Thailand’s Defence Minister Adul Boonthumjaroen said the central challenge was not simply which country would become more powerful, but how an international order could be built around fast-moving technologies.
The debate comes amid weaker momentum around military AI governance. At the third Responsible AI in the Military Domain summit in A Coruña, Spain, in February, neither the United States nor China endorsed the meeting’s outcome document, known as Pathways to Action. The declaration remains open for additional endorsements and is now backed by more than 40 countries.
That marked a change from the first REAIM summit in The Hague in 2023, when both Washington and Beijing supported the Call to Action. The United States also backed the 2024 Blueprint for Action adopted at the second summit in Seoul, while China did not. The 2026 document moved further towards practical measures covering oversight, accountability, testing, risk management and responsible deployment.
The absence of both AI powers from the latest endorsement list has sharpened attention on middle powers such as the Netherlands, South Korea, Spain, Singapore, Canada and Australia, which have played roles in sustaining multilateral discussions. Analysts argue these countries may have greater space to advance operational standards even if the largest military and technology powers remain cautious about binding constraints.
Military applications are meanwhile expanding rapidly. Armed forces are using AI for intelligence analysis, target identification, logistics, cyber operations, drone navigation, battlefield awareness and command support. The spread of low-cost unmanned systems has also increased pressure for faster automated processing, particularly where communication links are disrupted or operators must respond within seconds.
Governments broadly agree on responsible use, but differences persist over what should be legally binding, how much human control is required and whether certain applications should be prohibited. Nuclear command systems remain among the most sensitive areas. Security experts from the United States and China have called for clearer red lines, human oversight of critical systems and dedicated channels to manage AI-related incidents, but the proposals have not been adopted by either government.
The United States and China have pursued separate national approaches to AI policy while continuing strategic competition over advanced semiconductors, computing power and model development. Both governments have acknowledged risks from military AI, yet their rivalry has complicated efforts to translate general principles into shared mechanisms.
REAIM’s 2026 Pathways to Action calls for responsible design, development, testing, deployment and use of military AI, along with stronger oversight and accountability across the technology’s life cycle. It also stresses capacity-building and knowledge-sharing among states, reflecting concern that many governments lack the technical expertise needed to assess increasingly complex systems.
The Beijing forum showed that anxiety over these risks is no longer confined to specialist meetings. Representatives from several Asian countries raised concerns about autonomy, compressed strategic timelines and misinformation, while discussion also covered potential benefits of AI for defence planning and operational efficiency.