The two bombs in Japan were air bursts, and created very little fallout. Almost everyone who died did so as a result of the immediate blast effects, or the residual effects of the radiation of the blast itself.

I'm not trying to belittle the effect of atomic weapons. I'm pointing out that they are not all-powerful, and moderate preparation could save many lives in an attack or accident.

Nobody is going to be launching thousands of missiles at the U.S. But it is not beyond imagination that a rogue nation may launch one or two, or that terrorists may sneak a warhead into a city or two. A nuclear power plant might have a serious meltdown. A dirty bomb might go off somewhere.

In any of these cases, a simple civil defense program, including maybe biowar issues, could save many lives.

***

Your more difficult question--how much destruction is too much in a war--is not so easy.

It's obvious that we could have destroyed Afghanistan or Iraq in less than a day if we had wanted to, and there would be no civil war afterward. Genocide always works.

It's also obvious that total pacifism, or unwillingness to engage in any military activity at all, would result in us eventually being overrun.

The real answer, of course, is somewhere between these two insane extremes. But where? I wish to God I knew.

We are fighting a much more restricted war in Iraq than any other war we've ever fought. Any WWII general would have obliterated Fallujah had it been found to shelter large numbers of the enemy. Maybe there were cases where towns in France occupied by the Germans were allowed to evacuate their civilians before being shelled, but none come to mind.

There may be a minimum level of violence beyond where a war simply can't work any more, particularly if your enemy has no such scruples. I've been studying this in the current situation in Iraq, and wonder if just a bit more violence up front might have saved a lot of violence later. Shooting looters. Killing Sadr after the first uprising. Leveling Fallujah after the murder of those people. Maybe. I don't think it's that simple, though. Imitating Saddam's methods might work, but where does that leave us?

Can we project all the force we need only using bombers, like Clinton? But what does that really change? What was really different in Iraq after Desert Fox? Would bombing Iran's nuclear facilities and then just going home work? Or just push the problem off for a while?

This question is bigger than Iraq. Without Iraq, we would still be facing the same problem in Afghanistan. Or in Sudan. Or anywhere where we eventually have to use military force to protect our interests, or those of our allies.

For decades we developed a military designed to fight other militaries. Enemies in uniforms, with flags and marked military vehicles. We are treading new ground here with asymmetric warfare, and simply giving up and going home isn't going to make the problem go away.

If we can't win in Iraq without resorting to total destruction, where else will be able to ever win? Or do we just write off military action completely?

I'm open for suggestions. I do know that if we run from Iraq, we'll be out of Afghanistan within a year. Once we start running from Islamic radicals with road bombs and AK-47s, we will never stop.