International Relations in the Age of Robots

How will the use of unmanned vehicles on the battlefield affect international relations and reactions to war? Since we can't get rid of the technology, how can we deal with these problems?

For example, if we send robots in to kill humans, we are likely to be viewed as cold hearted cowards who are unwilling to use men, but rather send cold hearted mechanical killers to do their dirty work. It may look like we are just exercising power, that we don't really believe in the ethical reason for our war. This will not make us look good in the eyes of many countries, and may make them less willing to work with us. And others may then be unwilling to work with us for fear of how others will view them if they do. And this could also drive our enemies to more drastic measures. If we aren't losing men on the field, then they have no other choice but to attack our home country, attacking civilians who are unable to defend themselves. So now there is increased tension and more people live in fear. No one wants a world like that, but what can we do to stop it from happening? One way is to always use a combined robot human force and to also get support from other nations before engagement. What are other solutions?

This has already happened with real live American soldiers already...so what would suggest that robots would be any different?

I understand that we have faced the problem of using force with american soldiers and other nations not supporting that and we have already started incorporating robot and humans working together.... but how does using real soldiers produce the same reaction? If we are losing human lives, then we are least willing to truly die for our cause, and if the enemy wants to end the war thye just cause us to lose more men on the battlefield... but if send robots it could mean we aren't willing to fight our own causes, just use brute force to kill others into submission, and the only way for our enemy to make us stop would be to directly attack the homeland. We have had terrorist attacks, but the more desperate they become, the more attacks will occur, and the more devestating those attacks will be. So I think using robots causes a lot more tension, and may have more serious implications internationally.

It's very similar: do terrorists spend hundreds of billions of dollars on defense every year like we do? The United States has 12 aircraft carriers, for example. The country with the next most aircraft carriers has one. So how would the U.S. using things like fighter planes, laser guided missiles, stealth bombers, aircraft carriers, destroyers, etc. not be considered using brute force by the international community? The typical insurgent that we are fighting against with an AK-47 or an RPG doesn't stand a chance against anything like that...so how would fighting against those be any different than fighting against robots that he wouldn't stand a chance against either? The point here is that the US has plenty of tools that we use already that enemies stand no chance against, how would adding another tool to that arsenal be any different? I don't understand how these applications of technology are any different than those just because they are "robotic," which is somehow vastly different than using computer advancements to accomplish the same thing? We've already used predator drones to patrol large areas of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, something that we likely would have done using other planes that nobody would have a chance against either...so how is this at all different?