Well, while we're speculating from the comfort of our leather chairs as to whether or not Dresden was justified, we should ask the people of that time whether or not it was necessary: The men fighting the war, Londoners under the blitz. Let's not second guess them, okay?
As to the bombing of London, obviously that was evil. In general, I think it depends on one's objectives, doesn't it? If your objective is to enslave the world and slaughter entire races of people, you're not justified bombing civilians. But if your goal is to bring peace and democracy and safety and human rights to the world and rid it of an evil empire that menaces the entire world and only wants to enslave and murder people wholesale, THEN, AND ONLY THEN, may you bomb the enemy's cities. There is no moral equivalence whatsoever. Same act. Different motivations. Makes all the difference in the world. IMHO.
Sorry, I should have noticed that mistake in sending it to myself.
Regarding Dresden.... "if your goal is to bring peace and democracy and safety and human rights to the world..."
Well, the goal of Dresden was to terrify the population. It wasn't to end the war. Your remarks fit dropping the atomic bomb, but I don't think they fit Dresden. The ends don't always justify all the means.
But thanx for your answer.