I think the most glaring example is the R9X missile, a hellfire variant that replaces the explosive warhead with spinning, whirling blades. What it promises is fewer bystander deaths from strikes, instead of rethinking if the strike is worth making. responsiblestatecraft.org/2020/07/06/t...
Reporters are fascinated by a weapon that purportedly results in fewer instances of collateral damage, but its existence as a byproduct of endless war is often overlooked.
and if it impacts something squishy, not hard like metal plates or building walls, what then?and if it impacts something squishy, not hard like metal plates or building walls, what then?
And of course if the target is even who they think it is. Reminded of the Kabul strike in 2021 that killed an aid worker not a bomb maker.
Access to a more precise weapon doesn't change the fundamental questions of a strike: is the target correct, are they legitimate, are they an imminent threat? It mainly toggles down the deaths in a strike relative to other weapons but more than if never fired. athertonkd.substack.com/p/twilight-g...
On directing violence through the unknown knowns and fogs of forever war.