In the last few years, an uncomfortable fact has emerged: armed robots called “drones” are killing people half a world away. They fire explosives into homes, vehicles, and funeral processions, vaporizing suspected combatants as well as innocent bystanders.
And yes, the U.S. military’s drone program sounds awful. But if drones are starting to concern you, that’s just because you’re not utilizing Slate Logic yet:
Now, some might argue that killing fewer civilians is not actually saving any lives, it’s just killing fewer people than a clumsier method might. But look at it this way: Imagine you’re driving a 1974 Dodge Monaco at full speed around a busy shopping mall. Some people might criticize you for that, too. Some people might get all hysterical and scream things like, “That’s so dangerous!” or “What are you doing?!” or “OH MY GOD, you just ran over that elderly man right there. I think he’s dead now. Is he moving? He’s not moving.”
But these people would be missing the point. The point is, think of all the lives you just saved by not driving a Hummer.
Under Slate Logic, we get to compare deaths from real drone attacks in places like Yemen to imaginary deaths caused by a hypothetical invasion of Yemen, a place we would never actually attack in the first place were it not for the use of drones. No matter the actual situation on the ground, just presuppose the alternative to drones is massive invasion. Send drones to Canada? Sure! It’d sure be a lot better than sending in actual troops. Take that, reality!
Still feeling uncomfortable about our drone program? Then you should really have a look at the full Slate article. It’ll be good for your intelligence, since it kills slightly fewer brain cells than guzzling paint thinner.