Bit reductionist to only look at direct conflict casualties. Even if you magically limit the damage to a few city blocks, if those city blocks just so happens to be central Manhattan, that's tens of thousands homeless, untold investment losses, longterm infrastructure damage limiting effective services and the flow of traffic.
"Hooray, only hundred or so people died! Now we can deal with the thousands upon thousands homeless, stranded, locked in broken elevators, buried under debris, looting, disabling of services ...." Let's face it ... you have a nation with a quarter of a billion guns. You have a multitude of destroyed banks and abandoned storefronts. I'd be half tempted to loot as much as I could in the chaos.
By the time the army mobilised past the deadlocked traffic, I reckon I could pack a few bags full of stuff that isn't mine. Who's going to stop me when protecting your stuff for the average person is less valuable than going out and looting that abandoned armoured truck full of some bank's money? They could use their pistol to protect their crappy tv, pc, and bed ... or they could use said pistol to abandon that crap and forcibly 'withdraw' a few million from those looters. What do you think the person is going to pick?
So the economic situation may alone be worse than the miniscule amount of life lost. As heartless as it sounds ....