Let's cut right to the point; a clone is a person created using the genetic material of only one person, as a genetic/biological duplicate of that person.
As we can clearly see in the case of identical twins, having identical genetics to somebody else does not make you any less of an individual or a person, and does not impact your rights in any way. Why should we consider a clone of me to be any less of a 'person' than I myself am, or less deserving of rights than me? On what grounds is this clone any more 'disposable' than I am, given that it is just as true that I share *his* genes as it is the other way around?
Clones are people just as much as not-clones are. There is absolutely no room for argument there. This question makes absolutely no sense at all, given that.
Because we are talking about war, so nothing better neither clones nor human. Instead, we do not need any war at all. And by the way, if we have to war, of course we use human. Human is more productive, more strategic, and faster than clones. Human and clones, is like god and human. The better clones, the great human.
Why does everyone think clones arent human!!!! Its STUPID. They were just born in a different way, that doesnt mean that they are inferior just because of their different method of birth. That would be like saying: oh, why dont we only use people who were adopted in war. I suppose i could put this argument on the other side too, you cant say 'clones instead of humans, because THEY ARE THE SAME DAMN THING