text: Conduct of Hostilities
  and emotional harm to their family; such loss would not need to be considered in the proportionality analysis.
  Similarly, the possibility that munitions might not detonate as intended and might injure civilians much later
  after the attack would not need to be considered in the attacker’s proportionality analysis because the harm
  is too remote (See DOD Law of War Manual, 5.12.1.2 and 5.12.1.3).
  PROPORTIONALITY IN TARGETING—HARM TO BE CONSIDERED
  The principle of proportionality imposes duties that apply to the protection of persons and objects that
  may not be made the object of attack. Harm to certain categories of persons and objects are not considered
  in applying the prohibition on attacks expected to cause excessive incidental harm, such as military objectives
  and military medical and religious personnel and military medical units and facilities.
  Incidental Harm—Military Objectives
  The principle of proportionality does not impose an obligation to reduce the risk of harm to military
  objectives. For example, an attack against an enemy combatant might also injure other enemy combatants
  who were not the specific targets of the attack. There is no obligation under the principle of proportionality
  to reduce the likelihood of harm to other enemy combatants or other military objectives, even if such harm
  was an unintended result of the attack (see DOD Law of War Manual, 5.10.1.1).
  Incidental Harm—Military Medical and Religious Personnel
  Military medical units and facilities and medical and religious personnel, due to their presence among
  or in proximity to combatant elements actually engaged are excluded from the proportionality analysis. These
  units, facilities and personnel are deemed to have accepted the risk of harm due to their proximity to military
  operations, but feasible precautions must be taken to reduce the risk of their harm.
  Since it is accepted that the defender may employ these persons to support military operations near or
  within military objectives, the attacker is not required to assess those persons as incidental harm in its
  proportionality analysis. These persons need not be considered as incidental harm in a proportionality
  analysis because the obligation of the attacker is related to the corresponding obligation of the defender to
  take feasible precautions to reduce incidental harm. If these persons could have the effect of prohibiting
  attacks by the attacking force, then the defending force that added such persons to its forces would be
  unlawfully using the presence of such persons to shield its operations or its military objectives from attack.
  If that were the case, the defending force would then have a corresponding obligation not to employ these
  persons near its forces so as to reduce incidental harm and instead to remove them from areas of military
  operations.
  Excluded From Incidental Harm—Harm Resulting from Enemy Action, or Beyond the Control
  of Either Party
  The harm caused by the attacking forces’ actions in conducting the attack must be considered. Persons
  or objects harmed through action directly attributable to enemy action, or beyond the control of either party,
  would be excluded from the attacking force’s proportionality analysis. For example, civilians injured or killed
  in the crash of an attacking aircraft downed by enemy air defenses or by enemy air defense measures, such
  as spent surface-to-air measures or antiaircraft projectiles, would not be considered in the attacking force’s
  proportionality analysis. Similarly, the risk to the civilian population from the legitimate deception activities
  of the defending force, such as jamming, obscurants, or chaff, would need not be considered by the attacking
  force, although the defending force should consider such risks as part of its obligations to take feasible
  precautions in defense (see DOD Law of War Manual, 5.12.1.4).
  “EXCESSIVE”
  Under the principle of proportionality, the potential attack against enemy combatants or other military
  objectives is prohibited when the expected incidental harm is excessive in relation to the concrete and direct
  military advantage expected to be gained. The weighing or comparison between the expected incidental harm
  and the anticipated military advantage does not necessarily lend itself to empirical analyses. On the one hand,
  striking an ammunition dump or a terrorist training camp would not be prohibited because a farmer is plowing