I don't like "collateral damage," but if this was a war, and if they needed to take out enemy without losing friendlies, they'd usually call in an artillery str

I don't like "collateral damage," but if this was a war, and if they needed to take out enemy without losing friendlies, they'd usually call in an artillery strike. This is way more accurate than that. I understand your sentiment, but the historical context is that this is much cleaner than previous methods. Notice that I said in war. I'm not sure how we piece together a moral system to deal with this kind of asymmetric enemy like terrorists/rebels. War is horrible. Is this lower grade conflict any better?