The historical trajectory of the "issue" of remote killing maybe starting with the ancient catapults, maybe earlier with spears or event the first rock ever thr

The historical trajectory of the "issue" of remote killing maybe starting with the ancient catapults, maybe earlier with spears or event the first rock ever thrown at an enemy; this development of increasingly "safer" ways to kill from far away will follow the trajectory unless humanity decides this got out of hand, is not tolerable, not in line with some higher moral understanding of military conflict and decides to stop the progression of the trajectory. Similar to the way ever mightier bombs and nuclear weapons were put under quite heavy "restriction" and "control" in the end. Also there is some bias in the representation of the way the "drone systems" are perfectly working (they are not faultless obliviously) and they are certainly NOT the uber-over-mega weapons the stories make them to appear. This has implications: 1.) collateral damage is quite common 2.) the insurgents learn to "fight" them over time (this will not be reported on) Pure technocratic minds may wonder about the "latencies" and the infrastructure involved...BUT just watch the skies at the next protest and remember the first time "just" tear gas got very precisely administered to a crowd. The sad part as always: convincing the "political" circle in the US is not enough, the huge weapons industry needs to be provided with some replacement idea/product/contracts should the killing drones become banished or more controlled. ps: i'd love to see the good old RATM create a song out the first few paragraphs of this gq text; proposed working title: “missile off the rail” /edit: typos