The issue is not really with the difference in impact between drone attacks and other types of aerial attacks, but with the dramatic increase in scale, resulting from reduced cost and risk.

It probably would have been more accurate to say something like "mass extra-judicial assasination/execution of individuals opaquely labelled as 'militants,' including US citizens, in foreign jurisdictions" instead of "drone strikes," but the latter is shorter and I thought would be understood as implying the former.

That appears to be an issue of policy not one of technology.

Because they'd more than likely target those same individuals with less precise weapons if not for the given alternative.

The technology enables the policy. If the cost and risk were higher, there would be fewer strikes.

They invaded two countries simultaneously (one landlocked). Then used secret stealth helicopters to fly a hit squad into an allied nations territory for one particular individual.

I don't think this is a fruitful debate but I doubt risk & cost are as much a determining factor as you'd like.