The third parties (i.e., children or wives) that are killed in drone strikes are surely collateral damage. America isn't targeting these people. (I'm certainly not arguing that it's right.)
China has shown on many occasions that it is willing to use the relatives of people it doesn't like as leverage. I don't know if it's because it has a long history of it [1] or just because it's effective and China isn't constrained by the rule of law. There have been many cases where the relatives of journalists working overseas have suffered [2], and Liu Xia was under house arrest for almost a decade because of her husbands "crimes" despite never being charged herself [3].
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_familial_exterminations
2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/china-detains-relatives...
Can you give some details about how you are certain that the death by drone bombing of Awlaki's 16-year-old son was collateral damage?
Keep in mind that Awlaki was targeted by drone two weeks before his son was killed. They are two separate drone attacks.
Drone strikes against US citizens in a country not a war with the US is at least worth thinking about. I can generally buy the ends-justify-the-means argument (or at least consider it), but the press secretary's response to this always rubbed me the wrong way: 'I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father...'