Funny I was speaking from a military perspective, I only recently hung up the uniform after 30 years service (RAAF). But you can't use military procedures here, this is a game with rules and restrictions. If this was real, everyone would be carrying nukes and stations would just be glowing puddles of molten slag.
Furthermore, I would not equate ramming as a military tactic. Yes it has been used by military forces in the past but normally by two groups: those individuals who know they are going to die and ram as a means of last support, and as a force multiplier by armies who have little regard for those doing the ramming (Kamikaze pilots for example, they really had little effect on the allied war effort, I think remembering that only 5% actually hit a target. In reality they would have been better off using those pilots and aircraft to attack in the conventional way, but I digress).
Regarding collateral damage, yes it is not only avoided, it is actually illegal under the Hague Rules of Conflict. Of course this only applies to those forces of the Western world but there are numerous military and civilian court cases for murder due to someone being trigger happy (or bomb happy) and causing civilian death. In fact Western air forces places what some consider very unrealistic pressures on pilots that they must visually identify the target and only commit weapon release if it is safe to do so, ie non-targets are not visible. On the other hand, insurgents and guerrilla warfare don't obey rules, that is why it is so hard for Western militaries to defeat them.
Fellow vet, US Army 11b 1988-1997 - and somewhat amateur military historian. You have a number of inaccuracies of fact here (and 1 of opinion which I've noted below)
1. Opinion - If Elite-verse were real, tight controls for proliferation of WMDs may be in place ala real life. So it's an assumption only that every Elite pilot would have nukes. I concede I can't prove they wouldnt, but neither can you make convincing assumption they would
2. Fact - Japanese pilot kamikazes were not used as a force multiplier in the sense that more conventional means existed. At that point in the war just before the invasion of Okinawa, the last line of defense to the home islands as far as Japan was concerned, they had more available aircraft than veteran pilots so it wasnt a question of better use of aircraft, but simply lacking pilots beyond very young, very green rookies.
At start of WWIi (US entry), Japan had been in armed conflict for decades, spreading their 'Greater Asian Co-Prosperity' sphere - their pilots were skilled combat veterans with hundreds of hours of combat xp; by Okinawa they had mostly rookies with barely a few dozen hours in the cockpit much less any combat xp.
There were a few notable veterans who volunteered as kamikaze, but for most part the volunteers were green, rookie pilots. In the long term, yes it would have done Japan more good to conserve those pilots instead of kamikaze. But at the time, Japan felt there was no long term if in short term they did not succeed in holding Okinawa.
3. Hague convention and party of countries - you have the Hague and Geneva mixed up. The Hague is a party of countries with signatories agreeing to a unified and common imternational procedure for serving legal documents and enforcing those statutes within member parties.
The code of conduct for land warfare, military engagement, and treatment of prisoners is covered by the Geneva Comvention, not Hague. And some countries who are member parties of the Hague do not recognize the authority, or lack thereof, of the Hague judicial bench, most notably the United States.
4. Collateral damage via warfare is not illegal or restricted by the Geneva Convention, nor covered by any authority of the Hague treaties.
Intentional direct targeting of non-combatants are, but collateral damage is literally the recognized acceptance of side or collateral damage to civilians and other duly recognized non-combatant status belligerents in the line of attacking recognized military targets.
the issue as you've noted is that a) most western countries place far greater restrictions on ROE than standard Geneva convention re accidental collateral damage would allow, and b) society has forgotten that all warfare is a crime - it is simply the victors who determine who were the criminals and who were the just.
It's not just pilots with hands tied re: insane ROE - try being a grunt pinned down and shot at by 'children' in Somalia that ROE did not allow return fire. Which the warlords knew, and hence recruited even more 'children' into their ranks.
To circle back to ramming - it's a valid tactic and a contradiction at same time. Military dictum has always been
1. Win at all costs. Survivors can have luxury of feeling guilt afterwards. The dead / losing side feels nothing.
2. The side that projects more force with greater conservation of military power is usually the winner.
Ramming is essentially deciding which contradiction is more important at the time.
