Drone swarms

It had to happen; the US army have developed a mode of warfare using drones to swamp the battlefield with overwhelming firepower. Relatively cheap to produce and operate, technicians, behind front lines can deploy thousands of armed drones in a swarm, killing everything in their path and destroying soft buildings. And why not?
These drones would do the same job, only better, as cluster bombs, designed to inflict maximum casualties on people, combatants and non-combatants alike, on the ground. Many countries including the UK signed a protocol prohibiting the use of these weapons on humanitarian grounds, arguing that their deployment was in some way a war crime. The US sensibly did not sign this protocol, recognising the simple truth that when you are engaged in warfare, nothing should frustrate your aim of winning.
I have said it before and repeat it here; warfare is the crime, all that happens on the battlefield is a consequence of this simple rule. When war is waged it should be as General Sherman recognised fought to win at ALL costs. Losing is not an option. This said, the responsibility for war must be on the leaders who declare (formally or not) a state of war. In effect, this means that the witch hunt against UK soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is perverse, when the leader, Blair, is free to earn millions despite widespread condemnation of his role.
War is the worst human condition. Fear of annihilation is a major factor in maintaining peace and drone swarms sound ominous. If they therefore prevent the outbreak of war, stop aggressors attempting a land grab, they could yet prove to be a force for good.