So according to joering2's statistics, 4% of drone kills have been children.
Maybe we can agree that's probably a bad thing. Regardless of whether killing children provides a tactical advantage (they might grow up to become terrrists, after all).
However, your argument to me sounds a little like
"You want us to stop using drones? Guess we'll just have to go back to murdering even more children, then. Seriously, you're forcing our hand here."
And BTW, I have a brilliant idea. If you put drones over your roads that shoot missiles at drunk drivers (preferably as soon as they enter their car), it'll reduce civilian deaths! So it's probably a good thing. You only need to figure out a way to guesstimate blood-alcohol levels from a distance, but if you can get its fault tolerance below 24% (or 4% if they're drunk children), you'll have a pretty solid net-win in civilian casualties over having to transport your flying death robots halfway across the globe.
import drone, random
if drink() and drive() or random() < 0.24:
get_blasted()
Maybe we can agree that's probably a bad thing. Regardless of whether killing children provides a tactical advantage (they might grow up to become terrrists, after all).
However, your argument to me sounds a little like
"You want us to stop using drones? Guess we'll just have to go back to murdering even more children, then. Seriously, you're forcing our hand here."
And BTW, I have a brilliant idea. If you put drones over your roads that shoot missiles at drunk drivers (preferably as soon as they enter their car), it'll reduce civilian deaths! So it's probably a good thing. You only need to figure out a way to guesstimate blood-alcohol levels from a distance, but if you can get its fault tolerance below 24% (or 4% if they're drunk children), you'll have a pretty solid net-win in civilian casualties over having to transport your flying death robots halfway across the globe.