If you're going for logical consistency, when it comes to rules of war, you end up with no rules. Why is a nuclear bomb different to a full scale carpet bombin

If you're going for logical consistency, when it comes to rules of war, you end up with no rules. Why is a nuclear bomb different to a full scale carpet bombing campaign. Why is mustard gas different to a fragment grenade? Why is killing ok, but torture is not? Why is a barely discriminate bombing campaign legal but a subway bombing illegal? Rules of war always encountered these arguments. But, do we want to eliminate them, just so things are philosophically consistent?