How a military historian discusses war's human cost

Why can a military historian discuss destructive weapons or mass casualties without restating that war is terrible every time?

Because the harm is already central to the subject, while constant repetition can obscure analysis, though historians must guard against becoming desensitized.

The destructiveness of artillery, machine guns, and large-scale weapons is treated as a basic fact, so the discussion does not repeat a moral disclaimer at every mention. Historians who spend their working lives with warfare can sound matter-of-fact because the subject is familiar, even though the casualties still matter. Professional familiarity can make a researcher inured to the material, and that tendency requires attention. Repeatedly emphasizing horror can also labor or exploit the point instead of helping an audience understand events. The methodological lesson is that analytical distance and moral awareness have to coexist.