It's not reasonable to insist on zero collateral damage of e.g. bodyguards, family, associates, etc., but still support drone strikes. If you resolve to assassi

It's not reasonable to insist on zero collateral damage of e.g. bodyguards, family, associates, etc., but still support drone strikes. If you resolve to assassinate a single person it's pretty much a given that you will very likely have to also take out bodyguards and possibly family members and other associates as well. If we don't like that then we shouldn't be assassinating people in the first place, especially by drone strike which is almost certain to have a higher rate of collateral damage. It is reasonable, however, to support drone strikes accepting the collateral damage but also insisting on a very high level of certainty, perhaps to the point of direct line of sight by someone trusted and nearby, that the target is where we think he is.