When Adolph Eichmann defended his actions this way, the jury was oddly unpersuaded. Generally "just doing his job" is not seen as adequate justification for mass murder of civilians.
Anyway, you are making an equivalence between combatants and civilians. Many people, as well as the Geneva convention, view this differently.
I don't doubt your morality, just saying this thread invites people to reflect on where those moral principles lead, if applied by everyone.
Really? That was an element of Truman's argument. Kill 150,000 Japanese with an A-bomb, save hundreds of thousands more Japanese and Allied soldiers lives. We were discussing that earlier, and some were dubious that was what would happen.
And the reasoning holds water if we are looking at a contemplated thermonuclear exchange where parties either a) choose not to use nukes and lose hundreds of thousands of soldiers, or b) choose to use nukes and billions of innocent people die, due to knock-on effects from destroyed agriculture, nuclear winter, radioactive contamination, etc. Call me crazy, but the loss of life scenario where soldiers die but we don't wipe out a large percent of the human race seems the better one.