Stopping a nation from the ability to wage war is a relatively new concept in "civilized" warfare. While never a truism, there was a time when battles and wars were fought with very limited impact on civilians. Sherman (US War of Northern Aggression) shocked the sensibilities of the world with his attacks, burning, looting and wholesale destruction of CIVILIAN targets, ignoring an army to burn cities and destroy the infrastructure of the South instead. Had the northerners lost the war, he would have faced trial as a war criminal. But that has set the stage for 150 years. Bombing cities, railroads, "soft" targets, civilian populations is now acceptable. Firebombing Tokyo or Dresden were normative. Even today, I live in Wyoming, middle of nowhere. But at the height of the cold war we were warned that we were a MAJOR target of Soviet missiles. Out oil/gas/uranium facilities, pumping stations, etc AND the proximity of the MX silos all over the region made survival here questionable. The genie is out of the bottle. How do we NOT have a war that does not focus on destroying civilians and soft targets?