Problem with this stuff
If you remove the soldiers and pilots from a military system you achieve several things but two stick out for me:
1) The conduct of a war, the tactics and strategies, used by the mechanized country will have essentially no restrictions. If there are no Americans on the battlefield, then there is no way for the American public to know if the war is being fought according to Hoyle, or at least Geneva.
2) Politicians in control of these systems have carte blanche to use violence in international relations. Indeed, from having robot weapons to having a point and click attack interface in the White House would be a minor development.
A democracy like the USA has (in theory) check on the power of the executive: Congress has the power to declare war, the exec does not. In the past when the exec fought undeclared wars - say Cambodia, Laos, Central American insurgencies - it got caught out because people talk. But if the exec has this kind of weapon system, then congressional approval of war becomes irrelevant: the exec simply does not tell the congress that there is a war. The executive branch becomes, if it so wishes, autonomous in it's ability to attack and destroy anyone it perceives as enemy - congressional oversight intended to keep the exec 'sane' falls away.
These weapon systems undermine a principle check on executive power in the USA. They are not really intended to 'save American lives', so much as they are intended to dramatically extend the power of the executive. They are fundamentally a tool in a fight between the exec and congress over which body controls the USA federal government.
I ask: when, in history, having acquired unrestricted military power, has a government executive/king/emperor failed to attempt imperium?