Making sense of the senseless.

In building a logical syllogism, let us agree to the following:
There are only two kinds of war: offensive and defensive.
There are only two justifiable options once war is engaged, to win or to lose.
If one agrees to both premises, and if one has a careful eye to history, the following conclusion can be made: the only way to “win” either of them is to wipe out the opponent.
Stalemate is not a logical option, as evinced by the Cold War. One does not play a game involving the deaths of ten men, much less millions, unless one is set on victory.
Masters of warfare from Genghis Khan to Winston Churchill understood this necessity.
The only reason to have mercy on an enemy is to spare a breeding population by which the aggressor self-propitiates and justifies its own existence—an infinitely more devious and wicked philosophy than the pragmatic solution by which genocide becomes not only a possibility, but a necessity.
Why would one leave behind survivors to plot against the conquerors? Any prince would not leave would-be assassins at his back, so we learn from Machiavelli.
Those that oppose such ruthless tactics do not understand the principles of war, if that itself is not an oxymoron, “principles of war(?)” since any tactician or historian understands that in war, there are no principles, no scruples, no so-called rules.
Only a fool engages rhetorical bantering about the proper way of killing.
Especially the fool who initially professes a regard for life as intrinsically valuable, but at the fool’s whim becomes disposable.
When one speaks of senseless killing, one ought instead to speak of dollars-and-cents-less killing, and then, as a matter of efficient economics, genocide is rendered cents-ible.
Spending taxpayers’ money on weaponry becomes justified only when those weapons are used; a weapon unused is a useless weapon, n’est ce pas?
Thus, the only practical means of reducing a threat is eliminating it entirely.
One does not speak of treating a cancer by excising only a portion, even a majority of it. A surgeon knows even the smallest piece left will return with a vengeance, possibly metastasizing in the future beyond any hope of treatment.
To take the medical analogy further, the logical recourse is to treat a cancer aggressively using chemical and nuclear weapons. The holy books of all three Abrahamic religions teach the prudence of razing the bastions of the infidels to the ground and salting the earth such that no seed of opposition may root there again.
The only sensible course of action, regarding war, is not to engage in it, yet that becomes problematic on a planet where human populations are multiplying exponentially.
Adolf Hitler, cold-blooded he may have been, managed to grasp the concept that every species needs lebensraum—breathing room.
A scientist understands in her earliest experiments that she can only support a certain number of rats in a cage of finite dimensions. A threshold of maximum capacity will establish itself such that the introduction of merely one additional rat will send the others into a frenzy of biting and clawing; only when a balance of sustainable levels returns, i.e. after the others are dead, will peace return to the cage.
Comparatively, Rwanda became the most overpopulated nation on the African continent immediately before the 1994 genocide. Is it any wonder that the carnage was so violent?
The next logical consideration i.e. the most sensible question, therefore, is how best to deal with over-population as the root problem, rather than the inevitable genocides, which result from ignoring it?