Consider it as an optimization problem: (a) kill unfriendlies (b) save neutral lives (c) save friendlies (d) keep minimal costs (e) thoroughly destroy opponent

Consider it as an optimization problem: (a) kill unfriendlies (b) save neutral lives (c) save friendlies (d) keep minimal costs (e) thoroughly destroy opponents means of warfare Given that the people setting priorities already don't keep (b) or (e) as it relates to civilian property in mind, how likely is a system to come into existence trained to consider (b) or (e) highly enough to say, not make the assertion that any amount of foreign destruction is okay if it is likely to minimize costs in the next 3 months? (i.e. We won't have to sweep that building if it's leveled.) Another alternative to indiscriminate death is calculated efficiency driven by algorithms tuned to save US money, kill their guys, save our guys, and if possible while doing the other three, don't kill neutrals, friendlies, or neutral property.