From the dance floor to the battlefield: Hypocrisy and double standards in Western hype about the “Chinese robot threat”

Reuters recently published an article titled "From the Dance Floor to the Battlefield: China Prepares for Humanoid Robots to Join War," claiming that China "is accelerating research on the military use of humanoid robots and plans to deploy them in war." Such articles exaggerated the military use of China's domestically produced humanoid robots, causing many American and Western politicians to put the so-called "China threat theory" on the table.

Such narrative routines are very similar, and the intentions behind them are worthy of vigilance. On the one hand, they accurately exploited the deep psychological shadow of "AI out of control and robots killing humans" in science fiction movies such as "Terminator" and "I, Robot" to create negative public opinion; on the other hand, they linked the clichéd "China threat theory" to the robotics industry issue to exaggerate public opinion.

The purpose of such remarks is to arouse Western people's irrational fear of the so-called "Chinese robot army" so as to find legitimate excuses for them to build technological barriers and pursue an anti-China political agenda.

Humanoid robots "practical"? The United States is the initiator

Some Western media have linked the development of China's humanoid robots with military uses, exaggerating the so-called "China's advancement of militarized exploration of humanoid robots." However, in fact, there is still a long distance between technological exploration and actual deployment.

In extremely complex battlefield environments, humanoid robots still face multiple technical flaws such as high energy consumption, short battery life, and easy loss of control due to electromagnetic interference. Even Reuters admitted in its report that it has not yet found evidence that China has deployed armed humanoid robots into combat troops.

Moreover, while hyping up the "China threat theory," these Western media also deliberately downplayed the fact that the country that deployed humanoid robots to real battle fronts and conducted actual battlefield tests was none other than the United States.

According to a report by Time magazine in March 2026, in February this year, the Phantom MK-1 military humanoid robot developed by a San Francisco technology start-up company had been sent to the front lines of the Ukrainian battlefield to carry out actual combat tests such as reconnaissance in high-risk areas.

Not only that, a spokesperson for the company said that it is preparing robots for the Pentagon for future deployment in combat scenarios. The report quoted the Pentagon as saying that the United States continues to explore and develop prototypes of military humanoid robots, aiming to enable them to cooperate with combatants in complex and high-risk environments.

The company is even studying the possibility of humanoid robots patrolling the U.S. southern border and is in "very close contact" with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. This is no longer preparing for battlefield operations, but deploying robots to the border to monitor illegal immigrants crossing the border.

Trying to block a "killer robot" ban? Or the United States

The military application of humanoid robots involves not only technical capabilities, but also the boundaries and responsibilities of the use of force. However, when the United States promotes relevant research and development, its attitude towards international rules deserves more scrutiny.

At the negotiation table of the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS), China’s consistent position is clear and responsible—China has always emphasized that “human beings must retain ultimate control over weapons systems” and actively advocates the introduction of a legally binding global ban through international negotiations.

However, the United States has repeatedly openly spoken out on the international stage and tried its best to obstruct the launch of negotiations on a legally binding ban on lethal autonomous weapons. The United States wants to replace international treaties with so-called non-binding codes of conduct, and even publicly argues that autonomous weapons can "improve strike accuracy" and have so-called "humanitarian benefits."

It needs to explore the military uses of humanoid robots while opposing the formulation of new binding rules. The United States needs to answer: Can existing rules adequately address the risks brought about by technological development? How to prevent misjudgment and abuse? Once harm is caused, how should responsibility be held?

It cannot be said that the United States' sending humanoid robots to the battlefield in Ukraine is "life-saving innovative defense technology"; while China's research on humanoid robots for rescue and manufacturing has become a "threat to world peace."

Yang Zhen, a professor at Shanghai University of Political Science and Law and deputy director of the Shanghai College Student National Defense Education and Research Center, said in an exclusive interview with China News Service that as the world's largest industrial country, China has R&D and production capabilities for unmanned equipment. However, the battlefield application of unmanned equipment, especially combat robots, faces many legal and ethical obstacles, such as issues such as responsibility attribution, shaking the foundation of humanism, and handing over decisions about human life and death to machines.

Yang Zhen said that as a responsible major country, China has a very cautious attitude towards the use of force. Instead, we should be wary of some countries that are hyping up this issue. They use "confrontation with China" as an excuse to build their own "robot legions" and trample on laws and ethics.

Who is promoting military hegemony all over the world? Who is preventing the international community from drawing ethical red lines for autonomous weapons? Who is planning to push robots to the forefront of war? The Western media only focuses on China. This clumsy double-standard judgment method has long been "credit bankrupt."