These machines are built to do the most damage on the enemy and not just their machines. Once the robots are down, the winning party don't hold theirs back.
Guns and bombs can hit further than arrows so enemies keep fighting further from the front line, but the death toll keeps increasing.
>the country with the most resources will win.
With more and better machines, even more resources will be put into wars. More resources get wasted, more machines get destroyed and more people get to die.
Total wars is a product of industrial revolutions. It changes the units in the scale of wars, from thousands victims to dozens of millions. And these machines - however smart and accurate - always end up killing civilians en masse. Look at the sophistication of the Israeli weapon system, what happened to Gaza in the past few weeks and tell me how technology saves lives in wars? It it isn't even symmetric warfare!
I hope you get to watch this incredible visualization one day, if you haven't already: The Fallen of WWII – https://vimeo.com/128373915
World population growth has more to do with this than anything else.
The area of china lost 40 million people, 70% of its population, during the Three Kingdom Wars - that’s on the order of 20% of the world’s population.
Also it becomes easier to do things like sneak a kill bot drone into a city and release it as the ultimate asymmetric warfare aka terrorism. Your terror attacks no longer scale with your ability to train and insert fighters willing to die.
The truth of the matter is we already have the technology at the DIY level to do this, and it’s just a matter of time before AI kill bots become the standard of war.
That didn't work on Germany or Japan in WWII. (Bombing had an effect, but the effect was mainly to degrade the enemy's ability to manufacture weapons, produce fuels and lubricants and move things around.)