clearly that depends on what you define as better? Ethically there is a reason that war should cost lives on both sides, if we get to the point where War is o

clearly that depends on what you define as better? Ethically there is a reason that war should cost lives on both sides, if we get to the point where War is one sided or worse the only lives lost are civilian non-combatants "collateral" damage that does not seem like it would be "inherently better" for the world. Past US presidents have already played Judge, Jury and Executioner with the US Drone program, nothing stopping future US Presidents from using fully automated US War machine to commit massive acts of war in the world as there would be no risk to "US Lives" I do not see such a condition as inherently better