The advancement of technology in the military domain has the potential to position robotic warfare as a replacement for nuclear weapons. An emerging issue surrounding the use of lethal autonomous weapons (LAWs) is weighing the balance between reduced psychological trauma for military personnel and the potential for increased psychological terror of civilians in war zones. Supporters of robotic warfare argue that these systems offer significant advantages, including the ability to avoid the ethical and emotional challenges faced by human soldiers. Specifically, they assert that LAWs can mitigate the psychological toll of warfare, such as post-traumatic stress disorder and other combat-related trauma. However, critics of robotic warfare highlight the dangers of reduced accountability and the loss of ethical control in war. While using LAWs might lower the risk for soldiers, it could make governments more likely to start conflicts if they view these weapons as a safer option. History shows that military technology often focuses on improving efficiency, making it likely that autonomous systems will eventually replace traditional methods. Given these considerations, it is essential to carefully evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of LAWs, as this review seeks to do. To understand the ethical concerns surrounding this topic, it is necessary to engage in an interdisciplinary discourse, as policymakers, military officials, and psychologists must carefully consider whether the pursuit of LAWs serves the long-term interests of society or severely fuels mistrust between nations. Furthermore, the substitution of human judgment with machine decision-making in warfare also raises human rights concerns that require thorough examination. These issues must be addressed before any consideration is given to the large-scale deployment of LAWs, as they pose critical ethical and legal challenges.