When we can see some of ourself in the other, the need to destroy is not so strong.
There is a unifying argument to be made between the Arkansas death penalty cases, the Syria attacks, the Afghanistan bombing, and the potential threat in the North Korean conflict.
One could argue that the maximum “legal” force used in the situation in Afghanistan to “end all conflict” would be justified in terms of lives saved if one wishes to sanctify the value of human life and force peace. I see the chemicals that were deployed – trinitrotoluene TNT – in the explosions as massive damage to the environment – fracking and pollution to the point of loss of 33 human beings who had families, loves, passions, and value.
G_d gave each of us individually the choice in how to use force. Society additionally constrains or empowers some relative to others. Maximum irreversible force to solve a problem can always be substituted with elegant artful small movements. Ask any engineer – it’s the nature of the game! To apply your mind to create a solution to a problem that could otherwise be solved with a sledgehammer.
The principle of minimum force creates the most jobs and saves the most lives except in an emergency. In Jesus’ times, when the ascetics lived up in the cliffs where the dead sea scrolls were buried, if fighting had destroyed the very cliffs that offered sanctuary…
And force almost always leaves a legacy which ultimately must be confronted (see slavery).