I find the comparison to submarines in WWII to drones to lacking in intellectual honesty. Treaties on new frontiers of war are common, we still have a treaty p

I find the comparison to submarines in WWII to drones to lacking in intellectual honesty. Treaties on new frontiers of war are common, we still have a treaty prohibiting the militarization of space. Someday it will be broken. Will it be a war-crime if it saves lives? What if ISIS has a satellite with nukes on it or something equally life threatening, should we heed the treaty even though doing so leads to our obvious demise? In WWII Japan was an existential threat to the United States. There is no similar existential threat with drones, just some hand waving about China and Russia. And there are a dozen other ways the comparison breaks down. What precautions are we taking to avoid harm to civilians? How do we insure transparency in this matter? How do we actually measure effectiveness? How do we prevent malicious groups from getting this tech from recovered drones lost in the field? The comparison dodges all the really hard questions and just smears the US and the US military.