The question should be: In this technological age, is collateral damage during war still acceptable?
I think I know why so many democrats are struggling with the drone warfare issue. Most of us are probably anti-war, but once it happens, we have different schemas in our minds regarding what should be allowed in wartime vs peacetime. For example, if you ask most democrats if it's acceptable for law enforcement officers to engage in high speed chases, firing into crowds, or breaking into the wrong homes and "accidentally" killing innocent homeowners, most would say no to all three. Because most of us don't think that innocent people should die when law enforcement officers are pursuing suspects. By that logic, the concept of drone warfare is reprehensible as well.
It gets kind of iffy when discussing drone use in wartime. I think the question should really be: Now that we've made so many advances in technology, is it still acceptable to have large numbers of civilian casualties during war? If the answer is no, then that means our military would need to lose the weapons and transition into a spy and assassin based agency that will maintain incredible accuracy in detaining and/or killing threats. Am I off base here?
= new reply since forum marked as read
