| Agreed about risk reduction leading to increased use of force, that's totally the case - look at drones. However while the frequency might increase, the scale and impact is at an all-time low. WW1: 40 million dead. Drones:
"According to the Long War Journal, which follows US anti-terror developments, as of mid-2011, drone strikes in Pakistan since 2006 had killed 2,018 militants and 138 civilian". Hard to argue with those numbers for a 5 year period. Roughly 20 people a year die by being crushed by their TV's and furniture in the US a year - we don't stop selling furniture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._... I mean how can you NOT support several thousand dead militants, with that minor a civilian cost? I'd happily accept a far higher civilian cost for the decimation of militants, but our guys are exceedingly professional and their precision is legendary. Mistakes happen, sure, but in comparison to the 20th century, we're doing great! We're doing so good, maybe we should argue that we need MORE precision weapons, given how much they've reduced overall conflict and the fact that large governments are no longer as willing to go toe-to-toe because of them. |
Those drones just make it easier to continue killing people tagged as "militants" (a very flexible word in the hands of our government, I'm sure) while removing deterrents, like the idea that our children could be sent off to die in such a campaign. So now we have robots killing people the government doesn't care about, simply because they have been identified as the "enemy." I think I've seen this movie before.