At some point, pacifism becomes part of the machinery of death.

[mythology]

56. If I am a pacifist and I watch somebody else get killed because I refused to intervene,

then did I not undertake an action (i.e. not intervening) that resulted in death? I would say yes, inaction is in itself a choice. If you don't think that's the case, ask yourself what you would do if you saw the proverbial baby carriage rolling out into a busy street. What would you feel if you did nothing? Would you think you were responsible in some way? I think I would.

The Dutch Supreme Court has held that the Netherlands is liable for specifically 3 of the deaths at Srebrencia. By refusing to protect the 3 men in question, the court ruled the state was in fact responsible for their deaths. The Dutch didn't kill any of the more than 7,000 men and boys killed, but they did expel the Muslims from the compound, an action that led to their deaths.

There are a series of interesting philosophical thought experiments around the idea of trolley problem which explore the idea of what happens if you can take an action that results in the death of one person to save more people.

In another example, look at the massive wildfire in California. Due to budget cuts, the Forest Service wasn't able to afford small fire operations that would have preemptively burned the sort of dead wood and brush that is fueling the wildfire. It's an instance where a smaller destructive act can work to prevent a larger more dangerous act.