Tell that to the late residents of Tokyo and Dresden.
I address that in a subsequent comment: "Nuclear warfare and carpet bombing being the obvious exceptions."
I think you have failed to make the distinction between target and method. Is a suicide bomber against a military target any worse than one dropped from an aircraft? Is a 'military' strike aimed at civilians (or aimed without regard for civilian casualties) any better than a suicide bomber?
A suicide bomber against a military target is "better" than a suicide bomber against a civilian target but the suicide bomber still fails to engage in the sort of "collective bargaining" that makes state-to-state wars more effective, decisive, and representative.
A military strike purposefully aimed at civilian targets is morally equivalent to suicide bombing. While the military strike might reflect the will of the people, its perpetrators should be tried and convicted by someone. I would argue that a democratic state is less likely to commit these kinds of obvious atrocities, compared to a paramilitary organization, because of voter squeamishness, international opinion & law, and "hearts and minds campaigns." But when it happens, in an ideal world, there would be repercussions.
Hiroshima, City of a Thousand Bars
I address that in a subsequent comment: "Nuclear warfare and carpet bombing being the obvious exceptions."
I think you have failed to make the distinction between target and method. Is a suicide bomber against a military target any worse than one dropped from an aircraft? Is a 'military' strike aimed at civilians (or aimed without regard for civilian casualties) any better than a suicide bomber?
A suicide bomber against a military target is "better" than a suicide bomber against a civilian target but the suicide bomber still fails to engage in the sort of "collective bargaining" that makes state-to-state wars more effective, decisive, and representative.
A military strike purposefully aimed at civilian targets is morally equivalent to suicide bombing. While the military strike might reflect the will of the people, its perpetrators should be tried and convicted by someone. I would argue that a democratic state is less likely to commit these kinds of obvious atrocities, compared to a paramilitary organization, because of voter squeamishness, international opinion & law, and "hearts and minds campaigns." But when it happens, in an ideal world, there would be repercussions.