I think you have pointed out the difference, Vanderhoven7. Or at least one of them. God would be much better able to calculate the outcome of any of his potential decisions, far better than men could.
I think God could also make it so any decision he made had a good outcome, one that was clearly of benefit to all. Was destroying almost all life with a global flood the best possible outcome to the problem of a lawless world? It's hard to think of a more punishing outcome. Was it beyond God's ability to rehabilitate that world? Was the world that followed the best possible outcome? It wasn't long after the waters receded, that Noah cursed one of his sons. And it wasn't much longer before Nimrod was building a tower to the heavens, an act that God saw as needing His direct intervention to prevent.
If my choices in 1945 were the release of two atomic weapons versus a land-based invasion of the Japanese homeland, I might still choose the former if I knew the potential damage. The latter option might be the bloodier and more costly by far. But what if my other choice was to convince my enemy to sit down and agree to peace without either of those two options? Can you think of a scenario where you would not choose that third option?