In a few cases such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, life needed to be taken in order to save more. But even there the argument of 'innocence' is vague, because every person in Japan was instructed to kill Americans if we invaded.
When you say that 'war' as a general, non-specific to America, term is a relative comparison, I don't agree either.
In that generic 'war' as you used it, you are including Islamofascists, Nazis, Communists, and all manner of evil. There should be no relative comparison, unless, of course, one supports the killing of innocents for whatever purpose one desires.
Whereas, if you had been specific to America during WWII (which is apparently what you actually meant), then you might have made a valid point. As it stood, you made none.
And by using 'war' in its generic term, and calling me 'naive' if I didn't think that innocent civilians were deliberately targeted, your tacit accusation was against our current military situation.........whether you understand that or not.
We are not targeting innocents in any of our current war situation, so in the current, specific sense of war, your parallel is incorrect and invalid.
My sense from this conversation, since I am forced to rely on guesswork since you continue to be evasive and cryptic, is that you believe the taking of innocent life for research is valid (even though it has not been proven to even have the potential to save lives), because our bombing in WWII was justified on the basis of saving lives.
Am I wrong about that?
War was just an example used to explain how things are relative, thank you.