But options might not be a good thing (overall) if it means more violence.
Less precise weapons mean more decision friction before a "shot is fired", and that friction before firing a shot might be a net positive overall.
The only real economic result attributed to precision is the degree of collateral damage. Is the life of a third world civilian worth the extra expense of more precise technology. As a war fighter I absolutely believe so. Civilian life is simply more valuable than the lives of the belligerents.
I don't think that's the case, because it ignores blowback.
For example, if a military uses a drone to precision kill enemies in foreign territory 10 times over a 6-month period, what effects does that have on the local population?
It's kind of a philosophical difference.