and when you bomb a military base you are killing non-combatants. Cooks, mechanics, administrators, a completely un-associated postie or truck driver might be delivering a parcel or supplies to the base.

These do not constitute war crimes but occupy this nebulous grey area named "collateral damage" at best and "war crimes" at worst.

In this case we are assuming that several if not many enemy commanders are attending a wedding and the question is asked whether the loss of lives at the wedding are "worth" the loss of lives through a protracted war that would arguably be the outcome if the enemy commanders continued operations.

I do not claim to have the answers but to merely state that this is not the solved mathematical and ethical conversation that some people assume it to be.

Well, consider where these drones would be most likely used, a lot of these recent bombing campaigns are taking place in Yemen these days, a country that has not attacked the U.S. and yet the U.S. is assisting Saudi Arabia there to conduct the strikes, even the ones where they know the majority would be civilians, including in the use of double-taps.

I'd argue that when you're the aggressor and are assisting a country that is one of the biggest human rights abusers on the planet, you do not get to claim moral superiority or any sort of gray area, you're just wrong and a war criminal, that's why I used the terminology.

I don't think the U.S. is in any position to judge how much someone's life is "worth", especially when not acting in self-defense, as in the case of Yemen, (or any recent U.S. intervention for that matter).

I can sort of see you point in the more general case, but in this case, where this drone would be used by the U.S. for illegal invasions, I can't.