Beware the Ides of T110.

The_Chieftain:   Does the rate matter, or the final tally? Does it matter to the dead if they were killed by Americans, Russians, Insurrectionists, Jihadists, or anyone else?   For the sake of argument, assume the war is killing 5,000 a month and is going to go on for five years if nothing happens. The American way of surgical strikes gets us to the end of the war three years from now. The Americans can proudly claim "We didn't kill a single civilian. Sure, 180,000 other people died in the meantime, but it wasn't us who killed any of them."   On the other hand, the Russians get involved in the same war, and just end it. They kill 5,000 civilians a week in addition to the actual enemy, and it's over in a month. Grand total, 25,000 dead. Plus, probably a lot fewer lives harmed as if the war is over, survivors can get back to quality of life issues like 'going to school' during their formative years. Russians probably spend less money, too.   Which of these two philosophies is actually better for the country the war is being fought in? You can make the argument that as long as the Americans don't get involved at all, the quarter million people who eventually die are not the US's problem, the US is 'clean of guilt.' But if the US decides that it is in America's interest to get involved in something, would it not also make sense that if it is worth getting involved in, it is worth getting involved to such an extent as to bring the conflict to a rapid conclusion with the lowest overall loss of life? I'm not saying that the laws of war should be removed, or that there should be an abandonment of the principle of proportionality when attacking the enemy, but 'proportional' means 'reasonable effort', not 'every single possible check and balance regardless of consequence'   I bought Elite Dangerous a month ago. Haven't had time to play it. I'm still fighting XCOM 2, which is murdering me.