Right. Roughly my concern. In the immediate, not killing civilians is great. In the longer run, being able to take out who you want without killing innocents m

Right. Roughly my concern. In the immediate, not killing civilians is great. In the longer run, being able to take out who you want without killing innocents modifies the moral calculus. You don't have to justify the turpitude of your target against the lives of innocent bystanders. So eventually the question approaches: how do you hold steadfast moral red-lines regarding the use of such weapons as PR costs and blowback approach zero?