Oh, I know that's harsh to say, but I am convinced it is only true.
In recent times, Israel among other things has developed and fielded dense explosive ordnance, which have a much smaller lethal radius compared to conventional explosives of equivalent power. They also are more expensive and require materials like tungsten which are not so common and must be imported. Have you heard even one word of thanks or appreciation from the usual suspects? Of course not, only some harping about the most negative aspects of those weapons. Update 21/10: Alright, I should have read what I wrote myself to avoid what seems self-contradiction. Seems, because then The Indipendent comes to my rescue.
A few years ago, American troops had Fallujah surrounded, but before moving in to crush their enemies they allowed civilians to evacuate. Of course that was a tactical disadvantage for Americans, because some combatants fled with the civilians and the rest used that time span to reinforce their defense. Yet, how did it go? The attackers fired white phosphorous ammunitions, and for that they were branded as genocidal imperialists or somesuch.
In contrast, the government of Sri Lanka finally mustered enough strength, moved in against the strongholds of the Tamil Tigers and achieved complete victory after many years of war. At what human cost it is not exactly known, but it is likely to run in the tens of thousands. Foreign reporters were not allowed in the area of operations, so we have not been flooded with tear-jerking images of sufferance and destruction.
A war should be conducted according to what gives tactical and strategical advantages, not according to what is supposed to meet the delicate sensibilities of the tranzists.