What Nagel would say about the Moral Permissibility of bombing Centerville is exactly the conclusion listed above. If the costs outweigh the means, then while every state would prefer an alternative to war, in cases where “utility and interest fail” or when these two factors are independent of the scenario- Centerville, in our case, it is not reasonable to use utilitarianism as a method for deciding to bomb Centerville. The problem with Centerville, that I think Nagel would argue, is that it is assumed that each party would prefer an alternative to killing anyone. But also assuming our state also wanted to win the war, each option involves killing some population of people as a result and therefore, rules out the utilitarianism perspective