Distance is better understood as range or reach than as numerical length.

Evidence

The whole spectrum of co-presence dimensions is therefore not limited to the palate of the various senses. For example, it includes one dimension that is of central importance in the present context and that could be called either the lethal zone or, reciprocally, the zone of vulnerability. This is the zone that would originally have been defined by the reach of the claws, limbs, or teeth of the prey and the predator and the relative speeds and endurance of their movements and strengths. In other words, at a pragmatic level it is necessary to replace the strictly numerical notion of distance by a notion of range or reach the length of which determines the limits and extension of the sphere of possible co-presence. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 948

Categorization

• DEFINE: Introduces the ‘lethal zone’ / ‘zone of vulnerability’ dimension of co-presence.
• XREF: Central to the book’s argument that drones extend the lethal zone asymmetrically. — connects to: Distance and closeness are qualitative richnesses of co-presence, not metric lengths. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 948

Related

• Distance and closeness are qualitative richnesses of co-presence, not metric lengths. (similarity 0.87)
• Co-presence requires being within causal range, not mere simultaneous existence. (similarity 0.85)
• Co-presence is defined by range and causal access, not mere simultaneity (similarity 0.82)
• Drones add the remote control’s range to the weapon’s range. (similarity 0.81)
• Drones multiplied ballistic reach by adding remote-control distance to weapon range (similarity 0.81)
• Distance-extension tools differ fundamentally from techniques that suppress co-localization (similarity 0.80)
• Co-presence can exist without co-localization, a break enabled by tele-technologies. (similarity 0.80)
• Drone missiles have larger lethal radii than conventional infantry weapons (similarity 0.79)