The reason I brought up those situations is not that they were unfair — although they were, that wasn't the point. It's because Gatling predicted that his wonderful invention would diminish exposure to battle and disease
overall, reducing the total of harm done by warfare to humanity — not just to the winning side.
He was spectacularly, world-changingly wrong about that.
In the same way, praveen9920 is predicting that "suicide drones…actually means limiting collateral damage". "Collateral damage" is a euphemism for mass-murdering civilians on the side of the military you are nominally fighting against, which is a war crime if done intentionally.
Praveen9920's optimistic predictions are likely to turn out to be catastrophically mistaken, like Gatling's, and for very much the same reason.