“How do you use minimum deadly force? It is an impossible concept, nor is it legally required. “
?? It has to do with colateral damage - otherwise we would simply be nuking anyone we don’t like.
( and yes, I understand that there are those here that would like that ... but wouldn’t it put all the Marines on unemployment ? )
I think his point was when there is a threat, to make that threat go away, you use deadly force. There is no minimum deadly force. You’re either dead, or you’re continuing to threaten (you’re not dead). The conundrum is determining when deadly force (make the threat go away) is acceptable.
Collateral damage such as killing civilians in ridding a city of insurgents is a far cry from nuking that city. This is one reason we do have collateral damage. It is far less costly in civilian lives than just bombing the crap out of a city.