War as a double-speak

A quote from this week's reading stood out very prominently to me as being particularly relevant to current affairs in the world.

       On page 125 when it says, "Many things that are of vital importance to enemy civilians (such as electricity plants, food storage, water purification plants, roads, bridges, and railways) are also essential to the enemy's army. To destroy them is to strike at the enemy's capacity to fight." I'm immediately brought back to the WW2 atomic bombings of Japan where thousands of lives were lost simply because of the importance of those locations to the military. As is touched on many times in the paper the line between civilian and solider is often very unclear and has shifted radically as warfare has modernized. It's also become easier to take lives from afar and en masse which has lead to events similar to these, though not on the same scale, becoming more common place. These morally ambiguous situations cannot be assessed empirically and thus have been used to both exonerate our allies and seek retribution from our foes. In a world where war serves as a double-speak for peace, is the civilian doomed to become more and more involved in the casualties/fatalities stats or will war revolutionize in light of this mounting problem?