Was it rude? I was genuinely curious as I could see a myriad of valid reasons why the introduction or use of these drones are worrisome. I myself am torn over certain aspects of their use and design that drives me to wonder whether or not they may inflict unnecessary suffering. I cannot argue against their efficiency (nor their need), and I believe that Ukraine has every right to defend itself and repel Russia as an invading force, but they brought up a valid point about what the future could hold in using this technology for warfare. I just wanted to understand them, personally, and the reservations that drove their stance on it.

Honestly your reaction and response are completely understandable from where I stand.

I don’t disagree with your argument, but I am curious. Where does your difficulty with the video primarily reside at?

• The ability to delay the explosion to guarantee success (intelligent/controllable)?
• The low-yield explosion, somewhere between hand-grenade and 40mm, which may be more likely to maim than kill on impact?
• The low cost and ease of operation which threatens uncovered infantry?

I can’t imagine the trauma of surviving an attack from one of these. The fear that something might fly in at any moment to chase you around to kill you would be more terrifying than being shot at. Maybe you could defend against it with a shotgun, but if the lower cost meant an adversary can send multiple at each soldier, then it becomes a game of numbers where the soldier is likely to be overwhelmed. Not a future I’d want to witness.

So somehow our representatives are fine with auto-enrollment of citizens for the draft, but a number of them oppose auto-enrollment for voting?