casualties

To play devil's advocate: A sufficiently advanced autonomous weapon would lead to precise strikes, and fewer civilian casualties.

Let's have it in the mid-summer, at 10AM during a low tide, to minimise all the timing-related casualties.

Pearl Harbor was a major military target and almost all casualties there were military (only ~100 civilians).

At a cost of 3.5% of their population as war casualties and 2% of their population as war dead.

War is hell - if your country engages in any sort of violent military intervention, there will be civilian casualties.

Oh, so the October Revolution (Октябрьская революция) had many more casualties than the American Revolution?

If you accept this statistic as reasonable casualties then in my book you're a murderer.

Compared to the alternative of using traditional bombers or using ground forces, drone strikes represent a huge reduction in civilian casualties.

We recommend layered security to protect people's cat pictures – doesn't it seem like a good idea for something which could literally result in casualties?

There will always be casualties and exploitation of workers in China, but that's more due to corruption than it is to systematic underpayment of Chinese workers.

I agree that there probably would have been no casualties if the plane had hit this drone, but it's not exactly a guarantee.

And we knew that Hussein was willing to risk great civilian casualties.

Not the stupid "I have no idea what I'm doing" ones, but the ones who'll do everything to be quick, no matter the casualties.

Engines on planes are made to chuck a flock of birds without exploding, i think the plane would have been "fine" (aka no human casualties) even if it did hit the drone.

War was a formal issue for many clashes throughout the ages: generally an amassing of resources, a relative comparison and victory to the amasser of "more" with some casualties paid as an afterthought.

"Severe human casualties" are impossible.

Casualties in the war on general purpose computing.