The use of drones is nothing new. Drones have been used for at least the last four decades. It is irrelevent whether a manned aircraft is used, or a drone. The results are the same, except with the use of a drone, there is no pilot on board to possibly lose his life on the mission. War is hell no matter how you look at it. Both sides want to cut the loss of life of their people in combat. It just makes good sense to use the drones whenever possible to save the pilot's lives. There is no way to put a pretty face on war. It is indeed an evil business.

The use of drones is here to stay and will be greatly expanded over the next few years - by all the major powers - not just the US, so this issue is not going away. The advantages of drones are highly apparent - especially the facts that they are cheap, expendable, and very effective in certain roles. As for using drones against a major population center of a country which has a massive standing army (with many British trained officers and specialists) who have been on 'high alert' (for an attack by India) for years, who have a proven nuclear arsenal, a highly educated elite (many of which are employed in Science and Medicine here in the UK and also the US), and a military (who are again growing tired of an apparently corrupt and weak Government that allows a foreign state to kill its civilians on its own soil), and the US risks picking a fight with a country who truly can punch above their weight. I am sure that the US military have indeed considered using drones against Pakistani population centers - this is what the military do - just like during the cold war they considered 'first strike options'. However I am also sure, just like during the cold war, that have also dropped any such plans after 'war gaming' the implications. The US under Obama will not risk igniting a firestorm - and possible nuclear exchange - with Pakistan, especially when they still have so many troops in the area, and when they still have the bigger prise of Iran to contend with.