Originally Posted by NWTF
You just asked the question he provided the answer to.
Short answer- No difference.
but we've been conditioned to believe there is.
"Chemical weapons, no way, we have to do something about this"
There is a qualitative difference between using a conventional weapon to strike a military target and blanketing a bunch of suburbs with nerve gas. It's madness to pretend that all ways of prosecuting a military campaign are morally equivalent.