What am I missing....anything that efficiently kills the enemy is what it is all about in war.
There is no way to put sugar coating on mass killing.
We forget what war is supposed to be about....killing enough of the enemy and destroying both his ability and will to fight.
Whatever gets us to that point with the least number of our side being hurt or killed is the only criteria we should consider.
Someone said..."if you find yourself in a fair fight....you have failed!".
We had no scruples in mass bombing of civilians during WWII did we?
We won decisively due to that and other methods....meaning unlimited war...not this silly assed ROE thing we have adopted.
Limit collateral damage by all means...it is good practice to do so.
Different conflicts require different tactics and strategy....and our weapons have to be varied and fit for the task.....Cluster Bombs have a valid place in the arsenal and in the conduct of hostilities.
We have Nukes....and they make concerns about Cluster Bombs seem just so much PC silliness.