It is absolutely true that in any war, there will be civilian casualties, either by accident or on purpose depending on the intent.

Spalind, there is one major difference between the war in Iraq and the war in Japan.

One is a war of liberation, the other was a war of self defense.

Dropping nukes on Japan was a nessesary step in ending that war quickly. The military was in the process of staging a coup in Japan. Millions were ready and willing to die to protect the main Island. It saved millions of American AND japanese lives in the long run.

We are trying to liberate the Iraqi people, dropping a nuke on downtown Bagdad would send the wrong message I believe. :rolleyes: "Hey Iraqi people, we came in because your leader was a threat and used WMD's against his own people. So here is a nuke in your capital to show you how much better we are than Saddam was!"

There were more people murdered in Philadelphia last year than there were soldiers killed in Iraq. So the nuke idea would be a bit overkill.

Thats not to say that I still think we need to bring the hammer more often and with greater force than our troops have been allowed to bring lately. The rules of engagement need to be changed. The terrorists know our rules, they count on it. So they lob mortars from civilian areas because they know we cant retaliate. (What horrible, stupid people we are that we follow our own rules!) Many times it seems like we are the only country that follows them.

The rules need to be relaxed. Business needs to get done.

I do agree with one thing you said, no amount of enemy lives, civilian or soldier, is worth the death of one American soldier.

But nukes? Comon....