No it's not. It is precisely equivalent to the argument you're making. If you think there is some moral imperative to impose costs on war, then it is incumbent upon you to draw the line. Why body armor but no drones? Both of them are cost reduction mechanisms. Why is one ok and the other not?
No it's not. It is precisely equivalent to the argument you're making.
No it's not. I would go into more detail but I don't feel you are arguing in good faith, so my effort would be wasted. It seems more like you are trying to out-post your opposition with silly false equivalences that waste time and sidetrack the discussion about drones.
But for anyone else reading, I will say that a distinction can be drawn empirically. Body armor doesn't seem to change the types of situations in which an attack would be considered, while drones do.
> No it's not. I would go into more detail but I don't feel you are arguing in good faith, so my effort would be wasted. > It seems more like you are trying to out-post your opposition with silly false equivalences that waste time and sidetrack the discussion about drones.
I'm not arguing in bad faith, you just aren't bothering to think through your point. As your very next sentence illustrates.
> But for anyone else reading, I will say that a distinction can be drawn empirically. Body armor doesn't seem to change the types of situations in which an attack would be considered, while drones do.
That is pretty obviously false if you spend two seconds considering it. And even if you were to take that as true, what about tanks? Planes? Those unequivocally change the considerable situations.
People are already complaining about the introduction of tanks in new settings like local police forces. Also, when you send a bunch of kids into a putative warzone and they powerslide their tanks around the local streets at 60MPH, it tends to make the locals unhappy. And again, you are shifting goalposts to avoid talking about drones.
> People are already complaining about the introduction of tanks in new settings like local police forces.
That is an irrelevant non-sequitur.
> Also, when you send a bunch of kids into a putative warzone and they powerslide their tanks around the local streets at 60MPH, it tends to make the locals unhappy
Ditto.
> And again, you are shifting goalposts to avoid talking about drones.
I'm not moving the goalposts. The goalposts remain the same. You claimed that weapons that change the operations you consider should not be used. And it is by that criteria that you object to drones. I falsified that criteria a bunch of different ways, and you've failed to respond to any of them adequately.