I suggested a parallel between the "total war" concept adopted by the North and our dropping atomic bombs on Japan. While both tactics meant accepting collateral (read civilian) damage in order to hasten the end of war, neither (imo) is equivalent to the "ANY means are legitimate" interpretation you gave my statement. In fact, both instances could have been much worse, as inconvenient as that may be to your argument.
I prefer to choose military targets, and save the lives of non-combatants.
Then I'd really like to know your choice of military targets aimed at ending the war against Japan in 1945. Have at it General.
There were hundreds that were military targets, munitions factories, ports, naval yards, etc - all could have been targeted by conventional weapons. The same military targets could be destroyed - certainly some civilians would be killed in any bombing, but far from the estimated 120,000 of Hiroshima and 75,000 of Nagasaki. I would have bombed with everything I had short of nukes, or used nukes on a naval fleet, but not against civilians.
Again, I acknowledge that the military is prepared for war and is universally recognized as a legitimate target. I still question why you are so eager for your family, your newborn baby, child or grandmother to be considered a lawful target by our enemies.