1. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
a. those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
b. those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
c. those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
2. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
a. an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and
b. an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
A drone attack would appear to meet the criteria

Nate

Clausewitz’s classic definition of war says nothing about its object being peace, rather “War is an act of violence to compel the enemy to fulfil our will.”

I’m not convinced, however, that the attacker has a strong obligation to do so (per Michael Walzer) and he certainly does not have to assume an infinite degree of risk. In any case, I tried to address this issue within the context of COIN, here:

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/proportionality-in-warfare

I see no problems with weaponized UAVs that do not also apply to any weapons of war. For me, the issue has always been how the weapons are used. Does killing terrorists in Yemen with whom we are not at war make moral sense? How about legal sense? What about if the terrorist is an American citizen? Those are the questions needing answers.

The paradoxical end or goal of just war is not ultimate victory over of all enemies but peace. And the end goal of peace is hindered by the dehumanization of the enemy that takes place in war. Increasing this dehumanization of the enemy through the use of drones, will not bring about peace, but only more bitterness and endless war.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-tortured-logic-of-obamas-drone-war

Shane Harris presents some really interests statistics in his article Out of the Loop here: http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/EmergingThreats_Harris.pdf

Notably, he states, “In World War II, it took a fleet of 1,000 B-17 bombers—flown, navigated, and manned by a crew of 10,000 men—to destroy one Axis ground target. American bombs were so imprecise that, on average, only one in five fell within 1,000 feet of where they were aimed…

In the Vietnam War, it took thirty F-4 fighter-bombers, each flown and navigated by only two men, to destroy a target. That was a 99.4 percent reduction in manpower. The precision of attack was also greatly enhanced by the first widespread use of laser-guided munitions…

In the Gulf War, one pilot flying one plane could hit two targets…A single “smart bomb” could do the work of 1,000 planes dropping more than 9,000 bombs in World War II. By the time the United States went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, one pilot in one plane could destroy six targets. Their weapons were guided by global positioning satellites orbiting thousands of miles above the surface of the earth. And increasingly, the pilots weren’t actually inside their planes anymore.”

For the most part, this is excellent news. It means far, far fewer non-combatant deaths, less destruction of non-military property, and less risk to U.S. service members.

But, as you suggest, there is a risk that it makes armed conflict too painless for the user of precision drone-based munitions.

The answer must lie in the proper application of jus ad bellum (determining the whether war is properly entered into) and jus in bello (which I discussed in my first post).

So if we can say that items 2, 3, and 4 are always likely to be easier criteria to satisfy when using these kind of precision weapons controlled at a distance, would you agree that these weapons tend to make the case for the use of force easier to meet than they were in the past?

If so, then the only other two criteria – military necessity and other rules of engagement – are the main limitations on the use of force. I’m not familiar with “other rules of engagement”, but “military necessity” seems like a rather malleable concept as well. If we can minimize all the “collateral damage” from an old-style military assault, then things that might have once seemed to be simply desirable or helpful might slide over into the “necessity” category. Such a change could happen not because of ill will, but because of the greater capabilities of our armaments.

Does that seem problematic to you?

the Atlantic: “Can We Wage a Just Drone War?” http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/can-we-wage-a-just-drone-war/260055/

and more generally on the policy, the Guardian: “America’s Murderous Drone Campaign is Fuelling Terror” http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/29/americas-drone-campaign-terror

When using drones (a term that is frequently misused–Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are frequently unarmed–once images showing a military target are received from the UAV, a commander can launch weapons from numerous sources including the same UAV, aircraft, or ground-based missiles), the commander must use the same analysis as when decided whether any target is appropriate:
1. Is there a military necessity?
2. Is there distinction/discrimination between military targets and non-combatants?
3. Is the advantage gained proportionate to the non-combatants at risk?
4. Will the attack cause undue suffering?
5. Will the attack violate any other rules of engagement?