Measurement seeks to limit data so that it can be examined in accordance with some qualitative or quantitative standard. Except by making heroic assumptions, much of warfare cannot be measured directly on a ratio scale. We are, therefore, required either to make such assumptions, or to provide surrogates for what we cannot measure directly in order to wrench them onto the ratio scale where they can be manipulated. To the degree that the assumptions are heroic or the surrogate is wrenched, the analysis is open to challenge. If the assumptions or surrogates turn out to be incredible, then another scale must be used in order for the analysis to be valid, and a reduction in mathematical precision accepted.
Numbers have inherent credibility.
They are not nearly as satisfying as ratio scales, but they should offer a better fit to measure what one is trying to measure. Failing that, one would have to use ordinal scales, such as the matrix used in operational risk assessment. So, the issue is not measurement per se, but the scale used and the validity of the measurement. I hope this clarifies rather than muddies the water.