Better weapons mean more civilian deaths. Counterintuitively, this isn't true. Suppose you need to take out a bridge. Are you more likely to kill civilians w

Better weapons mean more civilian deaths. Counterintuitively, this isn't true. Suppose you need to take out a bridge. Are you more likely to kill civilians with a PGM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision-guided_munition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision-guided_munition) or with a dumb bomb? Improvements in accuracy reduce civilian deaths. Improvements in effectiveness reduce deaths, too. For example, suppose you want to destroy a country's air-defense system. Which is the costlier way--in terms of loss of life--to do it: a conventional air engagement, shooting fighters and pilots in the air, and attacking missile defenses directly with bombers (and losing some)? Or evading defenses with a stealth bomber? Better weapons enable you to do what you want to do. When what you want to do is eliminate leaders or destroy infrastructure, that's a good thing, from a humane perspective.