Thank goodness military leaders do not listen to the Vatican. In 1927, Congress tried to outlaw bombing of cities in wartime (Kellogg-Briand Act). A lot of good that did.
What the Council Fathers said in GS about counter-city bombing wasn't anything new. It was a reiteration of the fundamental moral law that says that you don't deliberately massacre civilians. Not that you can't bomb ANYTHING in a city --- you can certainly destroy military sites, military factories, supply and transport facilities, etc. And civilians will be (unintentially) included in the collateral damage. That's understood. But you can't target civilians, which is what you're doing if you use a WMD to try to annihilate a whole city.
Is this something you disagree with? In other words, do you think that noncombatants are a legitimate target?
"In 1927, Congress tried to outlaw bombing of cities in wartime (Kellogg-Briand Act). A lot of good that did.
Laws are sometimes ineffective, but that does not constitute an argument against the principle per se. For instance, there's a law against would-be immigrants crossing our borders without permission and without papers. "A lot of good that did." But still, that law is right in principle.
Besides, the UCMJ still makes a distinction between collateral damage on the one hand, and the massacre of civilians on the other. And of course says it's illegal to massacre civilians. Do you think that distinction should be dropped? I'm not dumping on you here. I'm pro-US military. I'm proud my 18-year-old son just signed up for the Marine Corps Reserve. I'm just looking (respectfully) for your point of view.