Your argument is that more civilians should die so that war is less likely. That's not only morally repugnant on its face, it's flatly untrue. Greater collater

Your argument is that more civilians should die so that war is less likely. That's not only morally repugnant on its face, it's flatly untrue. Greater collateral damage has rarely if ever prevented war. Past wars with high collateral damage have been longer, costlier, and more frequent than they are today. Even if your utilitarian analysis were stomachably close to moral (it's not), it would still fail any sort of empirical test.