HarryW, attitudes/opinions like the following amuse me.
The fact that it's a completely immoral way of waging war....
There is a moral way to wage war?

I like what Curt LeMay once said (paraphrase): "When you go to war, you commit yourself to killing thousands of people. Does is really matter whether you do it with a rusty knife or a nuclear weapons?"

The allies caused fire storms in Dresden & Cologne (& perhaps other German cities) during WWII. Many people burned to death. Others suffocated due to all the oxygen being used by the fire storm. Biological weapons could not be more horrible.

The effects of fire storms were predicted by the experts who proposed the idea. Hiroshima & Nagasaki were no worse, yet nuclear weapons have always been considered somehow worse than the fire storms.

Why are biological or chemical weapons worse that other ways of killling? The victims are dead no matter how it is done.

During the cold war the US military seriously considered the logistics and cost effectness of targeting civilian areas rather than military & industrial targets. The study was stopped amost immediately, because almost all of Russia's industrial & military targets were soo close to major population centers that you would get huge numbers of civilians anyway if you just targeted the military & industrial stuff. No moral objections to the idea sere ever raised

War just is not a moral way of solving problems. Perhaps necessary, perhaps cost effective (I doubt this), perhaps requiring less intelligence, but hard to justify as moral.