kasher is going to disagree with me. the question is how much additional risk combatants should be prepared to accept. i want to try to draw a couple of the threads together. answering that, i think it was already pointed out that there might be some kind of definitive formula, and that is not going to work. but what you can say is a statement of fact. if you have military personnel who are trained and equipped for conflict and if you have civilians who are self evidently armed, it seems to me that which one is more likely to survive, other factors being equal, in a combat zone. the fact that combatants should be able to have additional risk seems straightforward. the degree to me comes down to the character of the environment you are actually in. the burden of risk transfer that you are prepared to accept is completely dependent upon the environment. if you are in a war of national survival, clearly you are going to be willing to accept a higher civilian death toll from your military activity and have to be prepared to