If there is a weapons manufacturing facility right next to a hospital, and the only way to take it out without risking extra soldiers lives is by bombing the area, which contains hospitals, should the bombs be dropped? How do you feel about collateral damage in war? If it can't be avoided, is it worth it for the greater good? Is unavoidable collateral damage ever justified? By unavoidable, I mean an important mission objective cannot be accomplished without killing innocent people along with the bad guys. This would also include things like dropping atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, or in future wars. I would say that if the potential positives (taking out terrorists who will try to kill lots of people later) outweigh the immediate negatives (innocents lost) that collateral damage can definitely be justified on a case by case basis. It's unfortunate when innocent people die, but it's also unfortunate when terrorists live another day and kill hundreds or even thousands of innocents. The way I see it is innocents vs innocents. It's not worth bringing a skyscraper full of innocents down to kill 10 bad guys, but it is worth bringing a skyscraper full of terrorists down even if 10 innocents will die in the process. (If there are no other options).