Re: Kill your enemy safely, 500 years on
"the goal is to make the fight as "unfair" as possible."
But your enemy will be pursuing the same goal with whatever resource is available. You send an unmanned drone to a wedding party. "They" send some indoctrinated mule with an exploding rucksack on your public transport.
"War is somehow more moral if the enemy has more chance to kill your citizens?"
War is more moral if the enemy has a chance to kill your military, otherwise it isn't war, it's genocide. If you're not putting your forces in harms way, what incentive is there to seek a diplomatic solution before the first shot is even fired? What is to stop you riding roughshod over anyone who disagrees with you, or gets between you and a chance to make a quick buck? And without a military target, who do you think your enemy is going to attack? One-sided warfare is what causes the outrage, because it encourages powerful nations to behave like bullies and leaves weaker enemies no option but to go for soft targets, i.e they have more chance to kill your citizens.
"War is hell, there's no civilizing it. When you fight one, load the dice your way as much as possible and get it done with minimal risk to your citizens. Nothing else makes sense."
Not resorting to war might make sense. Not propping up corrupt dictatorships then wondering why their oppressed peoples hate us might make sense. Not arming "rebel" groups to fight proxy wars against regimes we don't like then getting a nasty surprise when they turn their weapons on us might make sense. Not going to war on the pretext of imminent destruction in order to secure lucrative oil drilling contracts might make sense.