The Future of Frontlines: Human-Machine Teaming, Autonomous Warfare, and the Mechanization of Civil Unrest by 2046

Full report

On this page

The character of warfare and the mechanisms of state control over civil populations are undergoing a period of profound technological disruption. Driven by exponential advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), autonomous weapons systems (AWS), robotics, and pervasive sensory networks, the operational environments of the mid-21st century will bear little resemblance to those of the early 2000s. Looking ahead two decades to the late 2040s, questions regarding the physical presence of human beings on the front lines of international conflicts and domestic civil unrest become central to strategic forecasting. The trajectory of military doctrine and law enforcement technology indicates a future defined by a hybrid paradigm. Humans will not be entirely removed from the front lines of wars, nor will protests become entirely bloodless, machine-on-machine affairs. Instead, human roles will radically shift from primary combatants and physical enforcers to supervisory nodes orchestrating automated, machine-speed violence, while domestic protesters will increasingly find themselves engaged in asymmetric, anti-hardware friction against the robotic proxies of the state.

The Military Front Line in 2046: The Illusion of the Empty Battlefield

A prevalent hypothesis among techno-optimists and futurists is that artificial intelligence and robotics will eventually sanitize war, removing human beings entirely from the line of fire and replacing them with proxy machine combatants capable of zeroing out civilian casualties and collateral damage1. The empirical evidence gathered from contemporary conflicts and the current doctrinal trajectories of global superpowers refute this absolutist vision. The battlefield of 2046 will not be empty of humans; rather, it will be a hyper-lethal, networked environment where human vulnerability is heavily mitigated by layers of autonomous armor, but where the physical occupation of terrain still requires human infantry2. The war in Ukraine has served as a brutal, living laboratory for the mechanization of the front line, proving that cheap drones, electronic warfare, and attritable robotics can impose devastating costs on conventionally superior adversaries2. This conflict has demonstrated a clear transition of unmanned systems from tactical novelties to operational necessities3. In a watershed moment for modern combat, Ukrainian officials reported capturing a Russian position utilizing an exclusively unmanned force comprising aerial drones and ground robots, forcing an enemy surrender without exposing a single human infantryman to direct fire4. During a single three-month period, Ukrainian autonomous and remote-controlled systems, including platforms like the Ratel, Termit, Ardal, Lynx, Zmii, Protector, and Volia, carried out more than 22,000 frontline missions4. These operations involved dropping explosives, evacuating casualties, ferrying ammunition, and executing layered robotic assaults where aerial systems scouted and suppressed while ground robots seized physical terrain4. Despite these extraordinary technological leaps, defense experts universally acknowledge that terrain remains the ultimate currency of war4. While robots and drones can clear a trench, impose costs, and conduct initial strikes, the act of holding ground, pacifying a local population, and administering a captured zone fundamentally requires a human presence2. The future battlefield will reward integrated combined arms teams rather than relying solely on autonomous branches, meaning human infantry will always remain indispensable for fighting close battles and securing contested borders2. However, the human infantryman of the 2040s will operate in a manner entirely distinct from historical predecessors. The highly volatile and complex operational environment demands that soldiers evolve into multi-functional, cross-domain tactical managers6. Instead of relying on massed formations, militaries will operate as highly dispersed, decentralized organizations capable of independent action but designed to anticipate and converge effects rapidly6. To survive the proliferation of hypersonic weapons and pervasive drone surveillance, these units will be forced to become "unknowable," reducing their physical, cyber, and electromagnetic signatures and constantly shifting operational patterns to avoid predictability6. Furthermore, because advanced digital systems are vulnerable to jamming, data poisoning, and cyberattacks, the infantry of 2046 must possess a robust technological resiliency, maintaining proficiency in simpler, less detectable analog methods to ensure they can degrade gracefully under pressure and circumvent enemy countermeasures6.

Manned-Unmanned Teaming and Doctrinal Architectures

The conceptual framework enabling the transition of the frontline is Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T), defined as the synchronized employment of soldiers, manned platforms, and unmanned systems to achieve enhanced situational understanding, greater lethality, and improved survivability9. By the 2040s, MUM-T will have reached a level of maturity where single human operators or commanders will act as "quarterbacks" for swarms of semi-autonomous and autonomous assets, operating across land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace6. The integration of MUM-T is already reshaping international force structures. European defense initiatives, such as the iMUGS2 (Integrated Modular Unmanned Ground System) project, are actively transitioning modular unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) from experimental phases into field-ready capabilities embedded directly into battlegroup-level operations11. This reflects a strategic convergence where unmanned systems are treated as pre-integrated, scalable nodes within a digitally unified defense framework, capable of executing reconnaissance, casualty evacuation, and direct fire support11.

The proliferation of these systems necessitates a fundamental rewrite of military doctrine, particularly concerning casualty evacuation (CASEVAC) and medical operations. Unmanned aerial systems and autonomous ground vehicles will be relied upon heavily in dense urban environments and contested domains to deliver whole blood products directly to the point of need and conduct delayed first-responder interventions without risking human medics18. Yet, the widespread implementation of MUM-T introduces severe cognitive and human factors challenges. The NATO STANAG 4586 framework outlines various Levels of Interoperability (LOI) for MUM-T, ranging from basic remote control to unmanned systems capable of self-launch, recovery, and autonomous targeting9. As systems approach the highest levels of autonomy, the human operator is tasked with interpreting enormous streams of sensory data and making life-or-death supervisory decisions at speeds that strain human cognitive capacity, leading to the risk of mission overload in contested environments9.

The Geopolitics of Algorithmic Warfare: "Appropriate Judgment" vs. "Intelligentization"

The physical integration of machines on the front line will be largely dictated by the geopolitical and doctrinal approaches to artificial intelligence adopted by competing superpowers. The philosophical divide between the United States and the People's Republic of China regarding AI in warfare provides the structural blueprint for how the 2046 front line will operate. The United States framework is anchored by Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 3000.09, updated in 2023, which establishes the policy for autonomy in weapon systems20. The core tenet of U.S. doctrine is the mandate that autonomous and semi-autonomous weapon systems must be designed to allow commanders and operators to exercise "appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force"21. This doctrine does not strictly demand a "human in the loop" physically pulling a trigger for every engagement; rather, it requires a "human on the loop" who maintains broader involvement in decisions regarding how, when, where, and why a weapon will be employed21. The 2023 update aligned the directive with the DoD's AI Ethical Principles, emphasizing rigorous hardware and software verification, validation, and realistic testing to minimize unintended engagements20. However, defense analysts note a significant gap in U.S. policy regarding the actual tactical employment of these systems. To rectify this, experts have proposed a "Certified Employment Framework" based on four pillars: Certification, Authority, Restrictions, and Accountability23. This framework argues that human beings are always in control of LAWS by virtue of designing them and defining their mission parameters, asserting that a structured planning process conducted by certified staff satisfies the requirement for appropriate human judgment23. It also recommends pushing release authority down to tactical levels, such as brigade or battalion commanders, for less controversial systems, while relying on mission-specific employment checklists rather than sweeping constraints that might limit battlefield utility23. Conversely, China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is aggressively pursuing a doctrine of "Intelligentized Warfare" (智能化战争), which views AI, big data, and algorithmic decision-making not merely as tactical enablers, but as the dominant paradigm of future conflict26. Chinese military strategists argue that the future of warfare is a contest for the mind, where the ultimate objective is cognitive dominance over the enemy28. In Intelligentized Warfare, AI is expected to transcend human cognitive limitations, generating a "decision advantage" by accelerating the traditional observe-orient-decide-act (OODA) loop into a rapid, algorithmically driven "predict-act" vector that operates beyond human comprehension6. The PLA envisions human-machine collaborative decision-making where AI acts as the cognitive backbone of command and control, shifting the human role to supervisory oversight to use machine speed to offset material disadvantages26. Chinese doctrine explicitly explores using AI to directly control the will of adversary decision-makers—a concept termed "cognitivization" or "brain control"—aiming to achieve victory without necessarily engaging in conventional kinetic warfare, a strategy highly relevant to their ambitions regarding Taiwan8. While Western militaries grapple with the ethical constraints of meaningful human control, the PLA operates under an authoritarian structure with fewer normative restrictions, creating an asymmetry of restraint that may allow Beijing to field immature but militarily useful artificial general intelligence (AGI) systems earlier27. However, the PLA faces a profound "Centralization Paradox": the adoption of intelligentized systems requires decentralized tactical autonomy, yet Chinese Communist Party ideology mandates strict, hierarchical control and political reliability, a tension that may severely constrain PLA agility in real-world combat27.

Regulating Lethal Autonomy and Navigating Vulnerabilities

The international community, primarily through the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts (UN GGE) on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), has spent over a decade attempting to establish regulatory frameworks23. Discussions scheduled through 2025 and 2026 continue to debate whether to pursue a legally binding instrument containing strict prohibitions, a non-legally binding political declaration, or mere clarifications on the implementation of existing International Humanitarian Law (IHL)31. Core debates revolve around defining "meaningful human control" and determining how to attribute legal accountability when a machine learning algorithm makes an independent targeting decision31. Despite advocacy from civil society groups and initiatives like the UN's New Agenda for Peace aiming for treaties by 2026, the strategic imperatives of great power competition make sweeping bans highly unlikely23. The reliance on autonomous systems also introduces unprecedented strategic vulnerabilities. Advanced weapon systems are increasingly dependent on intricate software networks, exponentially expanding their attack surfaces36. The notion of perfectly "air-gapped" military networks is largely a myth; physical interfaces, maintenance equipment, and wireless communication links provide vectors for cyber exploitation36. An integrity attack on a targeting subsystem could render a multi-million-dollar autonomous weapon inaccurate, while an availability attack could paralyze entire swarms, shifting the critical battlespace from the physical frontline to the domains of electronic warfare and cyber security36. The effectiveness of the 2040s frontline will depend entirely on data provenance, as AI systems remain highly susceptible to data poisoning, adversarial manipulation, and degraded performance in the chaotic, real-world conditions of combat8.

The Mechanization of Civil Unrest and Domestic Policing

While the military front lines will be redefined by MUM-T and algorithmic warfare, the domestic front lines—specifically the theaters of civil unrest, violent protests, and law enforcement—will undergo a parallel, highly visible transformation. Over the next twenty years, the mechanisms of crowd control and public order will transition from being heavily reliant on human riot police to a model dominated by robotic platforms, pervasive surveillance, and predictive AI. By the 2040s, civil unrest will undeniably pit human protesters against robots and machines, fundamentally altering the physical, legal, and psychological dynamics of dissent. The foundation for this transition lies in the rapid acceleration of "smart city" infrastructure and intelligence-led policing (ILP)38. By 2046, domestic security environments will be underpinned by sixth-generation (6G) communications networks featuring ultra-low latency, facilitating continuous synchronization between unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), robotic platforms, fixed sensor grids, and centralized command centers38. AI-enabled analytic engines will autonomously filter high-volume surveillance streams, detect anomalies, conduct persistent facial and biometric recognition, and execute predictive behavioral analytics38. This capability will allow law enforcement to forecast the outbreak of civil unrest and preposition robotic assets before human crowds can effectively mobilize40. The physical vanguard of state control during extreme unrest will be heavily mechanized. Today, policing agencies are already experimenting with robots as first responders, surveillance tools, and hazard inspectors41. Quadrupedal robots (commonly referred to as "robot dogs") and specialized Unmanned Ground Vehicles are transitioning from industrial inspection roles to law enforcement applications due to their clear operational advantages: robots do not suffer from fatigue, they do not experience adrenaline or fear, they are impervious to the emotional provocations of a riotous crowd, and their deployment dramatically reduces the municipal liability associated with injured human officers or excessive use of force lawsuits43.

The economic logic driving the adoption of these platforms is formidable. When accounting for salaries, benefits, overtime, and staffing gaps, a human security guard or police officer costs approximately $150,000 annually44. A robust robotic system, which provides round-the-clock monitoring without biological limitations, offers a return on investment within two years, ensuring that economic pressures alone will drive massive adoption by municipal governments and private security firms17.

Tactical Asymmetry and the Future of Protests

The introduction of robots to the riot line will fundamentally change the psychology of protest. When citizens engage in civil unrest, they are traditionally participating in a visceral, human-to-human contest of wills with the state. Removing the human officer and replacing them with a machine strips the interaction of its emotional and moral resonance. Protesters cannot appeal to the empathy of a Unitree B2, nor can they effectively intimidate an entity that lacks a self-preservation instinct40. Consequently, civil unrest in the 2040s will evolve into a form of asymmetric, anti-hardware warfare. Because protesters cannot emotionally sway the frontline enforcers, their tactics will shift toward the physical destruction, electronic jamming, and blinding of autonomous systems47. Protests will feature the widespread use of lasers to defeat optical and LiDAR sensors, signal jammers to sever command links, and physical traps designed to incapacitate quadrupedal joints or tracked mobility systems. The "front line" of a violent protest will resemble a localized zone of electronic and physical sabotage. To counter this, law enforcement robotics will be equipped with sophisticated, non-lethal crowd control mechanisms. Rather than relying solely on traditional human-deployed tear gas or kinetic impact projectiles, future robotic systems will employ directed-energy suppression43. Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRAD) capable of producing deafening sound beams, intense strobe lighting arrays, and automated pepper-ball launchers mounted on autonomous drones or ground platforms will be used to disorient, incapacitate, and disperse crowds with surgical precision40. Human officers, stationed in remote command centers or shielded far behind the robotic vanguard, will utilize deep learning algorithms to monitor crowd biometric data (such as elevated heart rates) to identify instigators and remotely administer measured, less-lethal force before a full riot can materialize38. The mechanization of policing is already drawing fierce opposition from civil liberties organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and various academic policing projects41. These advocates warn that permitting robots to use force remotely inevitably leads to its overuse, increasing the chances of sloppy targeting and unjustified violence shielded by a physical disconnect between the operator and the subject49. There are profound concerns that the widespread adoption of highly mobile robots equipped with analytics will hasten the proliferation of surveillance, violate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, and exacerbate systemic racial injustices through algorithmic bias40. While major manufacturers like Boston Dynamics explicitly forbid the weaponization of their platforms, fearing public backlash and the normalization of automated violence, the tactical utility of armed robots ensures that the temptation for law enforcement to adopt them will remain immense49. If a human operator can safely neutralize an active shooter or disperse a violent mob via a remote-controlled, armed drone, the political pressure to utilize that technology to save police lives will likely override civil liberties concerns, leading to a creeping militarization where non-lethal force application is routinely outsourced to machines48.

Conclusion

Looking toward 2046, the battlefields of geopolitics and the streets of civil unrest will be inextricably linked by the deployment of autonomous systems and artificial intelligence. To address the fundamental strategic questions: humans will not disappear from the front lines of international wars, nor will they be entirely absent from domestic protests. However, their exposure to immediate kinetic friction will be drastically reduced. In warfare, the human infantryman will transition from a frontline physical combatant to a highly skilled, multi-domain manager, orchestrating layered robotic assaults and navigating a battlespace where cognitive dominance and electronic warfare are as critical as physical terrain retention. In the domestic sphere, the physical clash of civil unrest will increasingly become a contest between human protesters and the robotic proxies of the state, fundamentally altering the psychology, legality, and tactics of public dissent. As machines assume the burden of immediate physical danger, the application of state force will become faster, more precise, and highly centralized, shifting the ultimate vulnerabilities of the state from the flesh of its soldiers and police to the resilience of its algorithms, supply chains, and electromagnetic networks.

Works cited

1. Obstructive Warfare Applications and Risks for AI in Future Military Operations \- Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), https://www.cigionline.org/static/documents/Fox-Sept2024.pdf

2. The next war will not begin at the border India must prepare for a China–Pakistan hybrid threat, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/defence/news/the-next-war-will-not-begin-at-the-border-india-must-prepare-for-a-chinapakistan-hybrid-threat/articleshow/132658437.cms

3. Defense Innovation Accelerates as Autonomous Systems Reshape Modern Warfare \- Top Trending Breakouts \- Market Intelligence, https://bvwd.ca.gov/expert-time/Defense-Innovation-Accelerates-as-Autonomous-Systems-Reshape-Modern-Warfare-15-7875

4. Ukraine Says It Captured a Russian Position Using Only Unmanned Systems—A Glimpse of Future Warfare \- The Debrief, https://thedebrief.org/ukraine-says-it-captured-a-russian-position-using-only-unmanned-systems-a-glimpse-of-future-warfare/

5. Saving the soldiers: robots as Ukraine's new weapon | Al Majalla, https://en.majalla.com/node/330745/science-technology/saving-soldiers-robots-ukraine%E2%80%99s-new-weapon

6. WHAT IS THE ARMY OF 2040? \- War Room \- U.S. Army War College, https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/army-of-2040/

7. The Future of the Battlefield \- Office of the Director of National Intelligence \- Global Trends, https://www.dni.gov/index.php/gt2040-home/gt2040-deeper-looks/future-of-the-battlefield

8. Decision Advantage Through Intelligentization By 2035 | T2COM G2 Operational Environment Enterprise, https://oe.t2com.army.mil/product/decision-advantage-through-intelligentization-by-2035/

9. Manned-unmanned teaming \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned-unmanned\_teaming

10. Manned-Unmanned Teaming \- Joint Air Power Competence Centre, https://www.japcc.org/articles/manned-unmanned-teaming/

11. iMUGS2: Europe Integrates Modular Unmanned Ground Systems into Force Architecture, https://www.grosswald.org/imugs2-european-modular-unmanned-ground-systems/

12. Humanoid Robots in Military and Defense: Revolutionizing Modern Warfare \- Blog, https://blog.robozaps.com/b/humanoid-robots-in-military-and-defense

13. Bureaucrat's Gambit: Why is Dmitry Rogozin Sending Russian Uncrewed Ground Vehicles to Ukraine—and Does it Matter? \- Modern War Institute, https://mwi.westpoint.edu/bureaucrats-gambit-why-is-dmitry-rogozin-sending-russian-uncrewed-ground-vehicles-to-ukraine-and-does-it-matter/

14. Russian UGV developments influenced by Ukraine War \- European Security & Defence, https://euro-sd.com/2024/06/articles/38818/russian-ugv-developments-influenced-by-ukraine-war/

15. Introduction to Military Drone System Technology in the Russian-Ukrainian War \- EEWorld, https://en.eeworld.com.cn/news/robot/eic649821.html

16. The State of Autonomy, AI & Robotics for Russia's Ground Vehicles, https://euro-sd.com/2023/06/articles/31798/the-state-of-autonomy-ai-robotics-for-russias-ground-vehicles/

17. Robot Security Dog: How AI-Powered Quadrupeds Are Transforming Surveillance \- inRobots, https://www.inrobots.shop/blogs/knowledges/robot-security-dog

18. Medical Operations in the Multidomain Battlefield \- USAASC, https://asc.army.mil/web/news-alt-amj17-medical-operations-in-the-multidomain-battlefield/

19. Operationalizing Robotic and Autonomous Systems in Support of Multi-Domain Operations White Paper \- Public Intelligence, https://info.publicintelligence.net/USArmy-RoboticAutonomousMultiDomainOps.pdf

20. When Machines Make Battlefield Decisions: Understanding U.S. Policy On Autonomous Weapons | ACE \- Alliance For Civic Engagement, https://ace-usa.org/blog/research/research-technology/when-machines-make-battlefield-decisions-understanding-u-s-policy-on-autonomous-weapons/

21. Department of Defense Directive 3000.09 \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department\_of\_Defense\_Directive\_3000.09

22. DoD Announces Update to DoD Directive 3000.09, 'Autonomy In Weapon Systems', https://www.war.gov/News/Releases/Release/article/3278076/dod-announces-update-to-dod-directive-300009-autonomy-in-weapon-systems/

23. A Human-Centric Framework: Employment Principles for Lethal Autonomous Weapons \- Department of War, https://media.defense.gov/2026/Jan/12/2003855378/-1/-1/0/20260112\_DEVERAUX\_LAW\_ONLINE\_FINAL.PDF

24. Review of the 2023 US Policy on Autonomy in Weapons Systems | Human Rights Watch, https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/02/14/review-2023-us-policy-autonomy-weapons-systems

25. United States, Use of Autonomous Weapons \- How does law protect in war? \- ICRC, https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/united-states-use-of-autonomous-weapons

26. PLA's Perception about the Impact of AI on Military Affairs\*, https://www.nids.mod.go.jp/english/publication/security/pdf/2022/01/04.pdf

27. Codifying intelligentized warfare: The People's Liberation Army's doctrine's turn in Science of Military Strategy 2020 \- Journal of East Asia Security, https://easc.scholasticahq.com/article/145838-codifying-intelligentized-warfare-the-people-s-liberation-army-s-doctrine-s-turn-in-science-of-military-strategy-2020.pdf

28. New Tech, New Concepts: China's Plans for AI and Cognitive Warfare | Hudson Institute, https://www.hudson.org/node/44791

29. By Algorithm or Order: Integrating Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems into Targeting, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Online-Exclusive/2026-OLE/Algorithm-or-Order/

30. Emerging patterns in intelligentized warfare: speed, consumption, and the transformation of military operations \- Frontiers, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/political-science/articles/10.3389/fpos.2026.1837867/full

31. GGE on lethal autonomous weapons systems | Digital Watch Observatory, https://dig.watch/processes/gge-laws

32. “Because We Take Our Values to War” Analyzing the Views of UN Member States on AI-Driven Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems, https://cjil.uchicago.edu/print-archive/because-we-take-our-values-war-analyzing-views-un-member-states-ai-driven-lethal

33. “Because We Take Our Values to War” Analyzing the Views of UN Member States on AIDriven Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems \- Chicago Unbound, https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1886\&context=cjil

34. The Pentagon's Autonomous Weapons Definitions Don't Need an Overhaul, They Need an Update \- Just Security, https://www.justsecurity.org/143209/the-pentagons-autonomous-weapons-definitions-dont-need-an-overhaul-they-need-an-update/

35. Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) and UN GGE Geneva \- ICT4Peace Foundation, https://ict4peace.org/activities/autonomous-weapons-systems-laws/

36. Cybersecurity of weapon systems: international law requirements and technical standards, https://academic.oup.com/cybersecurity/article/11/1/tyaf017/8234438

37. Autonomous Systems Reshape Battlefield Dynamics: Defense Sector Eyes New Opportunities \- Market Intelligence, https://bvwd.ca.gov/first-dry/Autonomous-Systems-Reshape-Battlefield-Dynamics-Defense-Sector-Eyes-New-Opportunities-12-5238

38. Law Enforcement and Policing in the Era of Technological Transformation \- ICT, https://ict.org.il/era-of-technological-transformation/

39. NASA Futures Roundtables: Exploring Challenges and Opportunities for NASA in the Emerging Environment, https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/nasa-futures-public-report-may-2023-anonymous-tagged.pdf

40. In the News \- Major Cities Chiefs Association, https://majorcitieschiefs.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/MCCA-Robotics-Reference-Guide.pdf

41. Policy Framework: Police Robots \- The Policing Project, https://www.policingproject.org/police-robots-policy-framework

42. REGULATING POLICE ROBOTS \- Boston University, https://www.bu.edu/law/files/2023/09/Regulating-Police-Robots.pdf

43. From connected police officer to Robocop – the future of policing is here \- Richard van Hooijdonk Blog, https://blog.richardvanhooijdonk.com/en/from-connected-police-officer-to-robocop-the-future-of-policing-is-here/

44. The Robot Dog Is on Patrol. And It's Just Getting Started. \- Thomas Frey, https://futuristspeaker.com/artificial-intelligence/the-robot-dog-is-on-patrol-and-its-just-getting-started/

45. Law Enforcements Move to Automation as the Future of Policing \- FDLE, https://www.fdle.state.fl.us/getContentAsset/c36e73e8-4b83-45a3-a747-438b35fa5245/73aabf56-e6e5-4330-95a3-5f2a270a1d2b/Cauley-Tony-final-paper.pdf?language=en

46. Unitree's B2: Elevating Public Safety Robotics Beyond the Capabilities of Boston Dynamics' Spot, https://www.dronesplusrobotics.com/post/unitree-s-b2-elevating-public-safety-robotics-beyond-the-capabilities-of-boston-dynamics-spot

47. Role of robotics in American police in 20 years : r/IsaacArthur \- Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/IsaacArthur/comments/qf73ou/role\_of\_robotics\_in\_american\_police\_in\_20\_years/

48. Don't Let Police Arm Autonomous or Remote-Controlled Robots and Drones, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/07/dont-let-police-arm-autonomous-or-remote-controlled-robots-and-drones

49. It's Simply Too Dangerous to Arm Robots | American Civil Liberties Union, https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/its-simply-too-dangerous-to-arm-robots

50. Pranksters show how horrifying Boston Dynamics' police robot dog is by strapping a paintball gun to it \- Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/tech/comments/lqbmlb/pranksters\_show\_how\_horrifying\_boston\_dynamics/