The defining characteristic of a necessity defense of a particular institutional posture is that it endures only as far as the necessity applies and that it implies an enduring imperative to mitigate the harms whenever doing so is consistent with the institutional necessity. This chapter looks at ways in which changing patterns of war fighting have begun to call into question the enduring application, and even the foundational empirical premises, of the necessity account offered in the previous chapter. One of the most notable shifts in twenty-first century warfare has been the rise of weaponized un-manned vehicles. The absence of immediate risk to the on one side eviscerates the institutional necessity account, by nullifying the detrimental impact of war on the soldier’s jus ad bellum judgment, capacity to act, and unit cohesion. The expanding role of private military contractors calls into question the claim that strict obedience is required to ensure effective institutional performance in war. At a bare minimum, this suggests that the empirical premises of the necessity claim must be reexamined, even in the case of wars involving mutual risk.