And that is even before the observation that killing people isn't necessarily (or even usually) the goal of war.
Drones don't replace artillery, they are a new weapon, just like air dropped bombs didn't completely replace artillery. An army with drones and artillery is more capable than an army with only drones.
The main difference is that armies learnt how to counter artillery: keep squads separated enough, assault units more dispersed, dig more foxholes, etc. They haven't learnt how to counter drones yet, the arms race for that is raging on Ukraine.
> No, if you look at statistics like ww2, most harm to soldiers was inflicted by artillery.
These two statements are not mutually exclusive.
How can the doctors tell? And a drone does not carry much AP armament. But one smacking into a Ukrainian residential block...
But then Trump, so....
Russia has been using plenty of artillery, like, entirely too much shitty artillery in fact. It's just as effective as it used to be.
Drones meanwhile are only effective right now because they haven't experienced a full cycle of arms race yet. Nobody has found the right "defense" for it. Automated cannons will likely nerf drone's effectiveness in a superpower conflict, and any attempt to harden a cheap drone to survive combat just drives it closer and closer in functionality and cost to an actual missile.
Basically this is like saying a navy is no longer a useful resource because of a war taking place on dry land.