Bruce, Sorry about the delay in getting back to your very well written post. I figured the topic is best left to after-hours.
By the time the massive Dresden bombing took place in Feb 1945, Tokyo firebombing took place in March 1945, and the two nukes in August 1945, there was no chance whatsoever for Germany or Japan to win the war. So the argument that those actions were necessary to win the war, or else the terrible consequences of Germany or Japan winning the war, provides no justification whatsoever.
I actually have a very practical view of "war crimes." There is of course the natural law aspect regarding common humanity and decency, however codified war crimes are very much a set of man-made laws, the upholding of which is in the interest of the dominant power. War is ritualized violence. As the current dominant power in the world, abolishing the ethics framework of "war crimes" is not at all in our own interest. For example, we really do not want the spreading of any value system that would justify waging unlimited war on civilians because they are guilty by paying taxes to an "enemy government." Supervision of soldiers' conduct has been a necessity for quite some time; that's what Military Police do; many Japanese generals were hanged after WWII essentially because Japanese army units did not have enough MP's to supervise soldiers' conduct vis civilians ("Command Responsibility" doctrine).
What constitute "war crime" change over time. The governing factor is actually not just degree of atrocity, but also military "effectiveness." For example, chemical weapons were banned because they were ineffective (at least against any opponent who also have chemical weapons); whereas prize-rules on high seas and ban against .50cal machine-gun used on human targets were lifted because the tactics (submarine attack without warning and aircraft strafing with .50cal machine-gunning) were highly effective. Massive killing of civilians without any military effectiveness in Dresden Bombing is what made it a "war crime," just like the deliberate bombing of London. The whole idea of "shock-and-awe" terror tactic against civilians should be abandoned, because it is militarily ineffective in the face of modern communication technologies; the atrocities end up causing far more outraged determined opposition outside the immediate zone of destruction than the number of people in the zone cowered by the "shock-and-awe." Especially as the dominant power of the world, the US really does not want to go down a route that would justify waging war against civilians, which would open door to asymmetrical warfare that obviates US military advantages.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
