Jesus would never call for genocide

How do you read His wrath in revelation?

It’s just a pretty big deal imo if “your” Jesus tells you genocide is ever right/good/to be carried out by individuals.

If Jesus were unable to ever conquer, that would also be too weak to be worthy. So at least that makes it a positive battle of which is the most ideal Jesus.

First: Jesus affirms every letter and serif of the Hebrew Scriptures repeatedly, e.g. Matt. 5:17-20; this implies that he has a positive interpretation of all the Scriptures where you see genocide, so such an interpretation must exist and be findable by ordinary research. In particular he knows that Ps. 137:9 is included and there is no special exception for that verse.

Second: Jesus affirms children can sin, Matt. 11:16-19 (Luke 7:32-35). This agrees with Hebrew teaching that children can sin at times, Jer. 7:16-19.

Third: Jesus affirms the truth is worth even dividing households over (which implies risk to children), Matt. 10:34-35 (Luke 12:53), quoting Micah 7:6. "I came not to send peace, but a sword."

Fourth: Jesus affirms heaven being like a king who orders the selling of children to pay a debt, and who resumes that prosecution when his offer of forgiveness is not received wisely (Matt. 18:23-35). He teaches the forsaking of children, compared to himself (Matt. 19:29, Mark 10:29, Luke 14:26, 18:29).

Fifth: About suffering in general, Jesus affirms that natural disasters, which affect children too, come at appointed times regardless of sin, and are just in their timing, and if one questions that then one had better ensure one is turned to God oneself to prevent dying similarly in one's sins (Luke 13:1-5).

Sixth: Jesus affirms a time when fathers will betray children to death (Matt. 10:21, Mark 13:12, also Thomas 21). He ties this directly to the Hebrew Scripture: Luke 23:28-31 with Is. 49:18-21, 54:1 ff. implies that it is overall better that the deaths occur at that time, to be restored later, than that sin go unpunished. Luke 19:42-44 implies that this would happen in the destruction of the temple, which many interpret as Jesus himself coming in wrath (we could say that part need not be held, but then he is still prophesying that the Roman destruction of children is a necessary fulfillment that is better than alternatives).

Seventh: Jesus affirms that punishments like this can ultimately only be rightly carried out by one who is sinless (John 8:1-11). If the Father ordains a death (as indeed he ordains all death), it is at a righteous time, because the books will be opened for all to inspect and every tongue put to silence, and people prejudging cases on less data must not be hasty. It's possible for the Son, or the Angel of the Lord, to be the means by which the death occurs, because he carries out the Father's will without sin. But God also affirms that very unjust regimes are used to carry out the deaths he ordains as well. So the degree to which a human tribunal can decree that is in the range of possibility but also great responsibility.

Eighth: Jesus gives a vision, Rev. 19:11-21, in which he returns to "judge and make war" (which would include regulated just war against whole peoples), in bloody clothes (Is. 63:3-6, the trampled blood of "the people"), to "smite" (break) and rule with a rod of iron, to tread the winepress (i.e. trample in blood, Rev. 14:20), to offer the flesh of "all men" to birds of prey, and to slay all "them that had received the mark of the beast". It appears children will receive the mark of the beast and be included in the opposing army.

Now, in context your question is whether Jesus would ever say at any time "slay ... infant and suckling". As you edited it, you ask, "Do you think there is any point in time or geography, across all of human history, where Jesus would tell you [i.e. anyone] 'you may' kill a baby in war?" Without adding the details of what deaths the Angel of the Lord is responsible for in the Hebrew, we'd narrow the question to whether a valid tribunal has ever existed for mere humans to judge a crime against humanity sufficient to warrant a just genocidal execution. It seems clear to me that Jesus's affirmation of Scripture implies he believes that it has existed a couple times in the past, which means the question is whether anything has changed.

If "you" means "anyone", Jesus's affirmation of the past implies that we won't get to an answer as long as you believe the past action wasn't Jesus's Father and I believe it was. That is, I say Jesus affirmed it in the past, you say that doesn't count because whether he did or not is the question, and we don't get it resolved without going one level deeper and investigating doctrines of inspired text and epistemology. If, however, "you" simply means me, I might get off on saying "no" because generically "things have changed". But it's possible Rev. 19 could be read as speaking of my own future and might include me accompanying a rampage that includes the deaths of children, so I'm not ready to say "no" either.

So we may need to refine the question a bit further if you have the patience. I don't know that Jesus "would tell" me, or would not, that I may kill children in war, so I don't have a developed thought one way or the other. I do know sufficiently, with the evidence above, that Jesus affirmed that Yahweh "has told" people they may kill children in war, which is not what you asked. I'm not prepared to say that era has or hasn't ended as I don't come to an immediate conclusion and can see both sides. But however we take it, the question turns on whether we accept Jesus both as one who affirms the whole Hebrew Scripture and as one who teaches a oneness of love, both of which are what the Greek Scripture portrays him as. If you don't accept the points above as indicating his view, you'd need either to state what is the actual authority other than the traditional Bible, or to explain patiently (preferably without invective) why my interpretation is flawed. But if you see these points then I don't see a path clear to saying Jesus couldn't possibly engage such a war. For Jesus to be unable to confront such a banal stratagem as human shields seems not to be the Jesus we worship; nor do you seem to have a practical answer for it either. The question might be put to you: If you belong to a military at war with modern Israel, dedicated to destroying targets where it is known that Israel is constantly using children as human shields, how would you proceed: give up, or attack after all regulations are met?