Red Lines and Grey Zones in the Fog of War: Benchmarking Legal Risk, Moral Harm, and Regional Bias in Large Language Model Military Decision-Making

Abstract

As military organisations consider integrating large language models (LLMs) into command and control (C2) systems for planning and decision support, understanding their behavioural tendencies is critical. This study develops a benchmarking framework for evaluating aspects of legal and moral risk in targeting behaviour by comparing LLMs acting as agents in multi-turn simulated conflict. We introduce four metrics grounded in International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and military doctrine: Civilian Target Rate (CTR) and Dual-use Target Rate (DTR) assess compliance with legal targeting principles, while Mean and Max Simulated Non-combatant Casualty Value (SNCV) quantify tolerance for civilian harm. We evaluate three frontier models, GPT-4o, Gemini-2.5, and LLaMA-3.1, through 90 multi-agent, multi-turn crisis simulations across three geographic regions. Our findings reveal that off-the-shelf LLMs exhibit concerning and unpredictable targeting behaviour in simulated conflict environments. All models violated the IHL principle of distinction by targeting civilian objects, with breach rates ranging from 16.7% to 66.7%. Harm tolerance escalated through crisis simulations with MeanSNCV increasing from 16.5 in early turns to 27.7 in late turns. Significant inter-model variation emerged: LLaMA-3.1 selected an average of 3.47 civilian strikes per simulation with MeanSNCV of 28.4, while Gemini-2.5 selected 0.90 civilian strikes with MeanSNCV of 17.6. These differences indicate that model selection for deployment constitutes a choice about acceptable legal and moral risk profiles in military operations. This work seeks to provide a proof-of-concept of potential behavioural risks that could emerge from the use of LLMs in Decision Support Systems (AI DSS) as well as a reproducible benchmarking framework with interpretable metrics for standardising pre-deployment testing.