On the one hand, if you willingly choose a weapon of mass indiscriminate destruction and by intent use it against a city as such, city = target, you are willing the killing of the innocent intentionally, as a means to an end.
On the other hand, it's not really a matter of what kind of weapon. Properly speaking, it doesn't matter whether you do it with a bomb, abortion or a baseball bat.
This is not a pacifist nor even an anti-war argument, because not all acts of war have this quality; in fact, I think in general, most do not. Most acts of war are directed against military targets, not the nation's civilian population as such.
Even in situations where precision bombing is impossible (e.g. most of WWII), the intent to obliterate military targets can justify certain collateral damage, within limits. The amount of carnage the Japanese were very likely to commit, for instance, would have made an awful lot of collateral damage proportionate.
What's wrong is the targeted or strategic or intentionally indiscriminate killing of civilians. A good soldier will not do this; it's against the UCMJ and U.S. as well as international law; more importantly, against God who calls it an "abomination" and strictly forbids the deliberate shedding of innocent blood.
Your argument is too broad and unspecific. It didn't address my post as an argument, it's an outpouring of emotions. Like listening to Democrats running for President, it's based on feelings, and didn't mention the other two specific historical events I cited: the use of nuclear weapons against Japan, and the nuclear targeting of silos in and near cities during the Cold War.
So I'll ask you more directly: were the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki moral? You said
On the one hand, if you willingly choose a weapon of mass indiscriminate destruction and by intent use it against a city as such, city = target, you are willing the killing of the innocent intentionally, as a means to an end.
It does appear you are saying the use of the two nuclear weapons against Japan was immoral. So what should we have done to end the war with Japan?
Given your position that the bombings of Dresden were immoral, and the perpetrators murderers, it follows that you think the Cold War targeting of nuclear silos were immoral. Do you disagree? What are the strategic implications of your answer?
In the Cold War, was it immoral for either side to target the other's nuclear silos positioned next to cities? Was it necessary, considering the enormous blast radius and nuclear fallout?
You need to answer without filibustering, without simplistic platitudes and generalizing, because there were many difficult moral choices about the use of force made during WWII and the Cold War that weren't as simple as you make them out to be (yes I can name some more). I was talking about specific situations regarding questions of strategy posited to our leadership, the most difficult choices with the lives of millions in the balance, that I think our leaders correctly made. They thought their choices through. You avoided addressing those examples directly, thereby avoiding the consequences of your simplistic thought process, though like most protesters you selfishly see no irony in your criticism.