> In other words, if they had more accurate weaponry and better information, they would harm fewer innocent people. That already exists. You could send someone

> In other words, if they had more accurate weaponry and better information, they would harm fewer innocent people. That already exists. You could send someone to assassinate that single person. So yeah, some soldier would have to risk their life (kinda what the profession is about), but the innocent civilians won't have to pay with their lives. Also, using the same logic, if a few serial killers are hiding somewhere in an apartment complex, why doesn't the government bomb the neighborhood?