Tiptup, I'm not sure I properly conveyed the gist of my question. I understand when a war is considered "just" vs. "unjust" (despite some very gray areas) ... but I was wondering when, in your view, the civilians of a society can be held responsible for the war acts of their ruling regime .. and thus be legitimate targets of military attack ... whether for coercion to surrender or as direct "assets" to wipe out?

Iran may be a legitimage target, for example, but are its civilians fair game for attack?

In the case of Japan during WWII, was it necessary to kill people with the atom bomb ... or would a less lethal demonstration of its ability to cause massive casualties have been sufficient? Would it have been more prudent to try a demonstration in less habited areas first, before going on to kill tens of thousands if the demonstation did not provoke surrender?

* * * * *

(oh, and C3PX, don't worry about stinky being mean to me. I'm not reading his stuff, and he knows it. Anything he posts about me is for his own benefit ... and he can continue to masturbate as often as he likes. He won't go blind from that, and I am blind to his posts from now on.)

.