Thank you for your response and I apologize for the delay in responding. I think you're using an ineffective metric to argue against something you're against e

Thank you for your response and I apologize for the delay in responding. I think you're using an ineffective metric to argue against something you're against ethically. Here's what I mean: saying it's benefit is immeasurable is arguing for better metrics. If it could be demonstrated that it did effectively end more terrorists lives and saved civilians, would you be celebrating it? I think you'd still want us as a society to invest in a more humane way of handling it. > What we can measure, however, is the civilian cost. Except of course it's nearly zero because those in charge of the drone strikes also get to define who can be considered a civilian. Which, in my opinion makes it immeasurable, currently. It still sounds like your arguing for more data, not a better approach. I think obviously drone strikes have a benefit to those who use them, otherwise they wouldnt keep using them out of some philosophical attachment to unmanned aircraft. I do agree we need more and better metrics and data on both their efficacy and civilian cost, but for me, even better would be a solution that doesn't even need the killing. But if you're asking for the military to abandon something in favor of a more ethical response, you should use a better argument and show how it will lead to less death overall. Otherwise, they'll dance around the semantics of what's being argued.