What morality are you speaking of where military leaders are obligated to expose their personnel to the same risk as their enemies? Sun Tzu you ain't, Colin. Heck, Manuel de Landa you ain't either. It seems you're naively alluding to some sort of schoolyard "fair fight" principle, which is a principle that doesn't even apply in the actual schoolyard, just highly regulated professional sports. Generals are no longer morally obligated to personally lead charges sword drawn into the enemy breach (if they ever did in the first place). Your argument really is applicable to every single advance in military technology. Machine guns, poison gas, aerial bombardment, heck even armor and bows and arrows were designed to minimize the risk of one side and maximize the disadvantage of its enemy.* If that's the ground you're trying to claim, you should just simplify your case and claim war itself is immoral. We can appreciate your principle and move on with the fact that wars nevertheless take place and can be subject to more nuanced debates besides the kneejerk "this is immoral!". *Drones are also cheaper and more logistically flexible than manned attack aircraft. The costs of war are a joint metric, that's why we refer to blood and treasure. Yes, some calculation is made about the impact on the other side, but war leaders are foremost responsible to its own side, usually at great expense to the other. I agree that, as articulated, your point is silly.