Exoskeletons in the Military

Abstract Military exoskeletons were initially envisioned as transformative tools for human enhancement, promising stronger, faster, and more-resilient soldiers. Yet decades of development reveal a persistent gap between expectation and practical adoption. This article shows how military exoskeletons consistently underperform due to technological, physiological, logistical, and financial barriers, including limited adaptability to irregular movements, long training periods, weight and mobility constraints, energy inefficiency, durability challenges, and high procurement costs. Drawing on meta-analyses and expert interviews, the article situates exoskeletons within the broader field of human enhancement, largely distinguishing them from therapeutic devices and clarifying the role of active and passive systems. Beyond technical limitations, the article examines significant ethical, health, and psychosocial risks: diminished autonomy, especially in conscription-based armies, dehumanization, dependency, long-term musculoskeletal strain, psychological pressure, and widened global inequalities. The analysis further explores whether exoskeletons qualify as weapons under U.S. and Israeli law, concluding that non-autonomous systems classify as enhancement tools, while fully autonomous AI-driven systems meet criteria for weapon classification. Based on these findings, the paper proposes a regulatory framework that includes informed consent for soldiers, continuous disclosure of emerging risks, and strict prohibitions on fully autonomous exoskeletons. It also calls for an international treaty ensuring meaningful human control over force, supported by transparent oversight and accountability mechanisms. Ultimately, the integration of AI into wearable military systems blurs the boundary between human and machine. The study argues that establishing clear legal and ethical limits is essential to ensure that embodied AI enhances human capability without redefining humanity itself.