His argument, though part of a possible number of factors in assessing potential moral status, becomes partial and misleading in isolation. 2 other (arguably more relevant) arguments I thought of provide a more complete picture: 1) “Perfectly equal weapons” (behavior assuming equal military power for every country or warring party) & 2) “Super imperfect weapons” (testing the willingness to cause greater collateral damage with increasingly imperfect weapons). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNLDcC_JoBk
Example of 2) from just yesterday. We can assume that US weapons are the most “perfect” in the world. And yet the willingness to inflict “collateral damage” is substantial. If the weapons were more imperfect, the casualties would be worse.
The Lancet study of Iraq casualties from some years ago also showed a tremendous willingness to inflict “collateral damage” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties
The previous US-led sanctions on Iraq also showed a similar negligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq#Estimates_of_deaths_due_to_sanctions
There is also good evidence that Obama’s drone campaign killed 90% civilians http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/15/90-of-people-killed-by-us-drone-strikes-in-afghani/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/civilian-deaths-drone-strikes_us_561fafe2e4b028dd7ea6c4ff (although even the targets here were individuals simply suspected of a willingness to carry out hostile actions in the future, not convicted of an actual crime - and done secretly, without any regard for international law or due process of any sort, of course).
I can keep posting stuff, but these examples suffice, I think