It occurred to me that this debate happens every year on 6 August, and (moreso of late) on 13 February (anniversary of the first attack on Dresden, in 1945).
The self-appointed moral arbiters post their condemnations of Allied air campaigns, and criticize their inferiors (the rest of us) for daring to gainsay their orthodoxies. No counter-argument penetrates their self-righteousness; no restatement of fact, nor historical context, nor strategic constraint, seems to make a dent in their certitude.
Their claim to be in possession of an all-encompassing moral code and their eagerness to jawbone us lesser mortals into complying with their diktats can tell us nothing useful about the validity (or the flaws) of that code, but it might be giving us hints about the size of their egoes, and the level of their self-regard. Repeated attempts to enlighten them don’t seem to do anything except solidify their certitude.
Whatever the value of morality and certitude of conviction might be, it is unwise to give priority to moral strictures if they degrade military effectiveness. And the more total any given conflict becomes, the more unwise such behavior can be. Being moral won’t help us if we happen to lose the war thereby.
And if the Second World War cannot qualify when it comes to totality, it’s tough to imagine what might.
While I disagree with everything you have written here I would like to commend you for at least trying to alter the ethics of our firebombing campaign against Japan and not the history of it, as some would do.