You could start by not inventing vague hypotheticals to argue against, and instead engaging with observable, measurable strategic and tactical reality?
War is studied. There are journals, papers and research on war fighting at all possible levels.
In the most recent action by Ukraine you can observe actual reality: what did they attack? Military equipment of the enemy. Why did they attack it? To degrade the enemy's ability to sustain and rotate their forces attacking them. What was it for? Well for one thing it will hopefully considerably reduce their ability to bomb civilian targets.
In this specific case, I agree that it was fine -- using drones with limited decision-making ability to strike targets like parked aircraft is okay, as long as there's an overwhelming likelihood of the drones not getting false positives from invalid targets.
My response was more aimed at the parent comment to my previous one, which seemed to paint delegating kill/no-kill decisions with a brush of "I don't know why this is such a big deal."
War is studied. There are journals, papers and research on war fighting at all possible levels.
In the most recent action by Ukraine you can observe actual reality: what did they attack? Military equipment of the enemy. Why did they attack it? To degrade the enemy's ability to sustain and rotate their forces attacking them. What was it for? Well for one thing it will hopefully considerably reduce their ability to bomb civilian targets.