[jrochkind1]

Drone warfare is terrifying for me.

More hypothetically for me now; horribly immediately for some in Pakistan and Palestine.

But you know how technology goes, especially this kind of technology, it won't be long until everyone has drones. And I don't think any of us will be immune from being victims either.

Even just from a self-interested position, if the U.S. were smart we'd be pushing for international treaties against the use of militarized drones. Just like international treaties against chemical weapons. In both cases, they make warfare just too horrible, and the only way to minimize their use is to make clear international norms that put them beyond the pale.

Of course, instead, we won't even sign the anti-landmine treaty. And are setting an example of maximizing use of militarized drones. One gets the feeling the current governments of the U.S. in the current context wouldn't have agreed to anti-chemical weapons treaties either, if they had a do-over.

[howlin]

There's no clear distinction between today's drones and older intelligent munitions such as cruise missiles.

[jrochkind1]

Wikipedia says:

> Currently cruise missiles are among the most expensive of single-use weapons, up to several million dollars apiece. One consequence of this is that its users face difficult choices in targeting, to avoid expending the missiles on targets of low value.

That's one distinction. What makes drones scary is how they can be, and are being, used to terrorize entire populations, in ways that cruise missiles have not been and are unlikely to be.

Not that cruise missiles aren't terrifying too, but the affordability and perceived 'precision' of drones is leading to an entirely new scale of un-manned warfare.

Also, drones increasing autonomy, in a way that cruise missiles have not been and are unlikely to ever be, is another distinction.

There are in fact a variety of clear differences.