I agree with you partially. If someone is endangering my life; if it's a me or him situation, I pop him first. For me, the real point of this article is that American troops consider 10 year olds that AREN'T aiming at them, but are scouting or collecting weapons to be legimitimate targets and they feel that they are entitled to kill those targets BEFORE they pose a direct threat.

Okay, I'll give my take on this and open myself to the inevitable assault. If it was me, I'd keep my sights trained on the kids, but I'd wait. If one of them starts lifting that RPG onto his shoulder, I'd open fire (short burst, I don't "unload" on the kid and I go for legs and arms). If the kid starts running away with the RPG, I leave him alone. Given the difference in relative power of the two forces, 500 RPG's extra in their hands isn't going to make a difference and that's much more than this kid is going to be able to collect. With our attrition rate sitting at below 0.05%, and them having a supply of RPG's already, the chances of THAT particular RPG doing any damage to our side are remote to say the least. On a balance, killing a child versus the potential harm that may be caused by an Iraqi soldier getting hold of another RPG, for me comes out in favour of preserving the life. Besides, there is a remote (note, I say remote) possibility that this kid has entirely different intentions. Maybe this kid thinks he's picking up a toy, maybe he thinks he needs to take a weapon home to protect his family, maybe someone will kill his Mom if he doesn't bring them the RPG.

This site explains what an RPG is and how it works. You'll see that the Soviet version of the launcher is reusable and it's a rather bulky, heavy (10kg is a big weight for a 10 year old) shoulder launched thing, that I doubt a 10 year COULD even operate.