>>>>So you think that every weapon is ok as long as there is no
>>>>other way of winning with less casualty's?

>>>Assuming the cost in human suffering for not
>>>fighting at all is also higher? Sure.

>>Only in that case I would agree yes. But I would
>>guess that in more then 90% of the conflicts a
>>peaceful solution would have created less suffering.

>Saying that a nonviolent solution would
>be preferred is obvious to everyone, as is the fact that it
>wasn't an available option.

Daevryn brought up the nonviolent solution...
You are mixing arguments up here I think.
So I will just ask again:
Do you think that every weapon is ok as long as there is no
other way of winning with less casualty's?

> If you look at how wars ended up until that point
>in history, that postwar is about as nice as an attacked power
>is going to be to its attacker.

How many Japanese civilians died due to US attacks and how many US civilians died due to attacks from Japan?

We can discuss for days but I will never accept glorification of such atrocity's.