Discussion here is getting derailed by the provocative title, so we&#x27;ve replaced that with more neutral language from the article. If someone suggests a better (more accurate and neutral) one, we can change it again.<p>Obviously there&#x27;s no question of war being humane, but it isn&#x27;t interesting to just repeat the universal reflexive objection, which the article itself includes: &quot;The idea that we might be able to make war more humane at all seems oxymoronic; war is, by definition, inhumane.&quot;<p>What we want is discussion that engages with the specific content of this article, not generic dismissals. If it&#x27;s wrong, great, but say how and where. Long experience with HN has shown that generic dismissals lead to boilerplate threads (edit: which usually then turn angry—perhaps because they&#x27;re so boring), but specific engagement gets interesting.