I don't buy it. For one, the asymmetry in risk and strength between a manned supersonic fighter plane armed with laser-guided missiles and unarmed person on the

I don't buy it. For one, the asymmetry in risk and strength between a manned supersonic fighter plane armed with laser-guided missiles and unarmed person on the ground is already massive. Drones should only piss you off slightly more. Second, I don't think the asymmetry is actually a problem; if you've decided to kill someone, you might as well do it by the most efficient means that pose the least risk to your personnel. In fact, if you have a really easy way to kill someone, you'd be a fool to use other means. To me, the problem is killing people. Killing people is wrong and you shouldn't do it. Shouldn't matter what means you have at your disposal. "How hard is this to do?" is not a proxy for "Should I do this?" If your counter is, "sure, abstractly that's right, but now how actual governments think", I guess I agree, but you're never going to talk them down from that by pressuring them to use less efficient killing machines. "But we have all these people to kill!" You're better off being angry about the decision to murder all these people, regardless of how it's done. Edit: grammar