[alecperkins]

The criticism of drones isn't of the technology, but the attitude of those operating them. The article mentions that it doesn't put the operator's own people at risk, and is trying to point out that this creates a detachment from the consequences. Before, taking out a target required people on the ground in some capacity, actually carrying out the mission or just identifying the target. Drones undoubtably save the lives of troops on a per-engagement basis, but now that there isn't that risk, and without some process or oversight, it's becoming too easy to just pull the trigger and destroy some pixels on a screen.

[philwelch]

I think it's actually the other way around. The stress of combat, the instinct to self-preservation, close contact with the horrors of war, and the loss of comrades likely makes troops on the ground more, not less, likely to commit atrocities or act callously towards civilians. Drone strikes are also easier to supervise and review.

[mc32]

I won't speak to the balance, as I have no idea what it is, never the less, I would tend to think that not being in immediate danger would allow for tracking and confirmation, whereas in conventional warfare, one might have acted a lot more on "gut feeling" (ie. that form running across the street is acting suspiciously and indeed seems threatening, it's either me or them.