"This isn't a new thing! Look we already have this superficially similar thing!" is a common argument in favour of changes to the status quo, especially when people believe the change is negative. It's intellectually dishonest.

And already we have all sorts of problems with cruise missiles (fired by mistake, locking on the wrong target, misbehaving in flight...). Increasing the window of risk to ground combat is very, very risky. As the British ex-soldier quoted in TFA, even humans struggle to discern friend from foe in situations like Afghanistan or Iraq, a machine could potentially create clusterfucks of unimaginable proportions.

Not that I think someone won’t do it - if it gives even a resemblance of tactical superiority, someone will deploy it, then watch in horror as things go terribly wrong.

out of scope, but this made me laugh :

>>> clusterfucks of unimaginable proportions

Or missiles. Or torpedoes before that. Also, targeting systems on manned vehicles etc.

I do think it can be seen as a spectrum and these are quite more primitive than more autonomous and general ones with longer lifetime.

Of course, the only problem people have with this boils down to watching too many action movies starring eventual governors of California.