What are they? And when you say there are "better" ways, please note that you've merely taken a utilitarian, and therefore relativist, approach to the problem.
... and then reconsider your own comment to that item 4 ...
What's to reconsider? I see no "lethargic indifference to ethics" in the situation I presented to you -- which is reminiscent of the bomb attempt against Hitler in 1944. Or, if you like, we can replace the "suicide bombing" example for a "Hamas suicide assault on an Israeli settlement" -- is a suicide assault always evil? Well, in such cases we must consider the fellow who gives up his life in battle to save the others in his unit: would that make him evil, too?
No, giving your life for those you know or love is an honorable act.
Rand covers the ethics of emergencies well in her book on ethics. One example she uses involves a boy scout river trip with you alone in a powered boat and your son in a canoe with several others. When the canoe overturns in rapids above a waterfall, there is little time for you to act and you see your son adrift while the others cling to the overturned canoe. .
The ethical question to be answered is ... Do you save your son and let the others perish, or do you save the others and let your son perish?
The objectivist would save his son; but the altruist would save the many ... and live unhappily ever after.