QUESTION for those who support the use of atomic weapons on civilian populations

[Matsubara]

The way I understand it is, if we are at war with a nation that attacked us first, and we think that using nukes might save the lives of soldiers by preventing a full-on invasion, exactly how many "saved" US soldiers' lives does it take to justify the use of nuclear weapons in civilian targets (which is, by definition, terrorism)?

I'm wondering, because we have already lost well over 3000 US lives in Iraq, as well as many thousands more crippled, maimed, suffering from DU poisoning, so shouldn't we have wiped all of Iraq's major cities off the map before invading, so that our soldiers could occupy the smoldering ash heaps without fear of IEDs? After all, Iraq did attack our best pal Kuwait, don't all Iraqi civilians deserve to die for that?

Shouldn't we have nuked Hanoi from the get-go? I'm sure that would have saved some US soldiers. And the Viet Cong deserved it. After all, they were attacking our puppet government in the South and for some reason expected the US to live up to their promise to allow nationwide elections. The nerve!

Oh, and what better target for nukes than Pyongyang back in the 50s! The leaders of the time were so foolish not to take it out! Now Kim Jong Il has the bomb!


And what tragedy that Lincoln didn't have nukes at his disposal back in the Civil War. 110,000 people died in that one. Just think how many could have been saved if we had "glassed" Atlanta, Charleston, Richmond. Oh, wait, confederates were still kinda like Americans, which would make them actual human beings. Never mind that one.



I know this post is dripping with sarcasm, but I am asking this question quite seriously:

ASIDE FROM Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when is the use of nuclear weapons on population centers okay?

My answer is "never". I'm curious to hear from the people who think that there is a legitimate use for these technological terrors.