This is actually a pretty interesting issue, which I hadn't bothered to look up before. A large chunk of all violent deaths are directly attributed to the US Coalition. For instance here [1] is the Lancet study, which directly attributes 186,000 violent civilian deaths to the Coalition alone. That yields a 4.1 ratio due to direct violence from the Coalition alone, which is itself already far worse than even WW2.
And that's extremely surprising to me. When you look at things like WW2 civilian deaths you're not only looking at violent deaths caused by the enemy. You're looking at deaths caused by all involved powers as well as indirect deaths caused by the nature of war - starvation, disease, despair, etc. The fact that one side, alone, in modern warfare can cause more violent civilian deaths (as a ratio) than all of those factors combined, in past wars, really emphasizes the notion that the concept of modern war being better for civilians is just exceptionally misguided.
The history books of the future are going to look back on the present in a way I think few can imagine today.
And that's extremely surprising to me. When you look at things like WW2 civilian deaths you're not only looking at violent deaths caused by the enemy. You're looking at deaths caused by all involved powers as well as indirect deaths caused by the nature of war - starvation, disease, despair, etc. The fact that one side, alone, in modern warfare can cause more violent civilian deaths (as a ratio) than all of those factors combined, in past wars, really emphasizes the notion that the concept of modern war being better for civilians is just exceptionally misguided.
The history books of the future are going to look back on the present in a way I think few can imagine today.
[1] - https://sci-hub.ru/https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet...