I got virtually the same apologia in public school. Problem is, it's more self serving than accurate, a nice example of the ends justifying the means. You're also missing the point I was making or at least arguing a different one.
When is it ethical to knowingly/deliberately kill civilians?
Bear in mind that civilians in countries with despotic/authoritarian regimes have even less say in the actions of their government than do the citizens of the 'enlightened' democracies that are usually doing the bombing. At the end of the day it's still killing everyday people like you or me who are just trying to survive and live their lives.
Tactical necessity and/or hastening the end of the war is the default defense for 'collateral damage'. Thing is, there's nothing you can't justify with that. Hence "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” and other absurdities.
Hell, Curtis LeMay himself said "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." All I'm saying is let's hold everybody to the same standards.
PS Ever read about the 'laws of war'? If you enjoy the absurd, they're good to read about, just what was and wasn't acceptable in warfare at various points in time and how that's changed over the centuries. At one point, if a city didn't immediately submit to an army it was perfectly acceptable for the army to rape, loot, pillage and slaughter the inhabitants.
LeMay was likely referring to all of the firebombing he conducted. It was Hiroshima that truly ended the war though. And of course Dresden was a horrible war crime committed against civilians too. Not that two wrongs make a right, but nothing the US or other Western allies did was comparable to atrocities committed by the Germans, Japanese, and Soviets.
why compare it then?
every state has done shit.
especially against civilians, even their own.