3 ms·
Why is it different or worse than low tech ranged weapons like a mortar or cannon that are also safe(ish) for the person firing, but also risk killing innocents
by WillPostForFood 7y ago
Why is it different or worse than low tech ranged weapons like a mortar or cannon that are also safe(ish) for the person firing, but also risk killing innocents bystanders?
- behringer 7y agoWe'll see what you think of it when foreign countries start flying strike drones in the US.
- masonic 7y agoThe U.S. has been attacked by contemporary equivalents since 1941 (incendiary balloons, submarines attacking land and sea targets, etc.) (Edit: this happened to be submitted earlier today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21738908 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21738908 )
- WillPostForFood 7y agoSame question to you: Should I feel differently if foreign countries fire a cannon, flies a plane and drop a bomb, or shoots a sniper rifle vs a drone strike? I don't want any of that, but if, for example, Putin decided he wanted to assassinate a Russian defector in the US, I'd rather he do it with a precision drone strike than a car bomb, or dispersing some poison that might affect bystanders. It's like suggesting laser guided bombs are worse than unguided bombs.