I agree regarding the ratio, but it would likely reduce the actual number of civilian casualties for a given level of coercion. Bombing is popular in part because it leads to low casualties on the attacking side. Enabling more precise use of force with similarly low casualties should be even more attractive, given the substantial and partially effective reluctance of democratic societies to engage in slaughter.

This would, of course, once again lower the threshold for the application of military force.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.