[DINKDINK]

Your argument is: "By making war more efficient/effective, we will reduce its use."

Say a government only has nuclear bombs in its arsenal and they really want an enemy of the state dead. Do you think they're willing to nuke an entire city to kill one person?

Now imagine a government has electronic kill switches. Imagine it being almost like The Matrix, they can just flip your life off at the flick of a button. Do you think they willing to just flick off the lives of anyone who they don't like?

You're effectively arguing that the latter is better than the former. Societies use more of a technology the far down the learning curve development goes and the cheaper the technology is. If there is no cost to violence, violence will be endless.

[debt]

My argument is that more precise war machines might cause less collateral death thus resulting in less overall casualties from conflict.

Unfortunately, historically speaking, the use of war is assured.

[philwelch]

Violence is already endless. It’s just a matter of moral vanity whether or not you feel better about not being personally involved.

We’ve tried non-intervention before, and places like Czechoslovakia, Poland, China, and Rwanda have paid the price. And the adversaries we have faced, from Hitler to Daesh, would not hesitate to use weapons of mass destruction as we would. The reason asymmetric warfare works is that the terrorist is willing to stoop to levels that we are not. The only counter to that is precision warfare.

[posix_me_less]

> "Violence is already endless. It’s just a matter of moral vanity whether or not you feel better about not being personally involved."

Nonsense. Violence is still limited, in time and extent, by economic and political forces, and by the fact that soldiers still have some respect for life of other people, because they are in the field, risking their own life and seeing the injustices of war. But put them in control of a violent video game, and that may change.

> We’ve tried non-intervention before, and places like Czechoslovakia, Poland, China, and Rwanda have paid the price.

You've tried intervention, and places like Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Syria also have paid and are paying the price.

Perhaps it is not about the intervention/non-intervention, but about how you engage in the world.

> The only counter to that is precision warfare.

Only if you already decided on the warfare part. An alternative is to stop killing unknown people abroad and in so helping create new terrorists, and instead doing something about cooperation between the governments to stop the violence.

[philwelch]

> Only if you already decided on the warfare part. An alternative is to stop killing unknown people abroad and in so helping create new terrorists, and instead doing something about cooperation between the governments to stop the violence.

So your solution is to negotiate with people like Hitler and Bin Laden and to appease groups like Daesh. Ask the millions murdered in the Holocaust how that worked out for them, how Western non-violence was the solution.

While you're at it, ask the millions of South Koreans living in peace and prosperity how they feel about Western intervention to protect and even rescue them and their ancestors from the Kim regime. Ask the people of Bosnia and Kosovo whether we should have left them to the whims of Milosevic, just as we left the Tutsis to their fate.

We're not the ones who have decided on the warfare part. We're not the one who expand their reach by slaughtering boys and men while kidnapping and raping women and girls wherever they go. We're not the ones who commit ethnic cleansing and hack babies apart with machetes. That's already been decided. The only decision we have is between leaving these victims to their fate and living up to the words, "never again".