Orca:
I honestly believe the problem has always been one of honesty. Attacking civilians because you can't accurately target anything more meaningful, or targeting civilians knowingly as part of taking on a target set within a city is, quite simply, attacking civilians. We shouldn't try to skirt the issue with handy catch alls like 'Total War'. We should be bold enough to commemorate and appreciate what the boys did, because in the (fairly exceptional) circumstances, they did the right thing.
You know, you took the very words out of my mouth! I couldn't have put it better myself! Of course bombing and burning cities kills civilians. It also wins wars, well it did that one anyway. I truly and firmly believe that, and I think that is where we pros and cons differ. If we could have won the war within the same timescale, or even quicker, without doing it then it was wrong practically, never mind LOAC. I do not think that we could though. Indeed I believe that either the Swastika or the Hammer and Sickle would have been worn on arm bands from here to Siberia to this day. If I am right, then it was of "Necessity, Humanity, Proportion and Distinction" so to do. The RAF used to be of the same opinion, well the bit that ran it did anyway. Now it doesn't. Why?
It seems to me that you could apply LOAC to any weapon system that fundamentally changes the practise of war, the submarine, the machine gun, the rifled barrel, gun powder....I believe that the Admiralty had an attitude about the first, but they were all absorbed into the various military manuals in turn as have bombers of course. Now I know that the point is not the weapon but what use is made of it, and that will always be whatever wins wars. So submarines were used by all sides to sink merchant ships and their civilian crews, the machine gun to swing the balance to the defensive and prolong the butchery of WW1, the rifled barrel to do likewise previously, and gun powder to break down city walls leading to the rape and pillage that followed. You see where I'm going with this? I'm afraid I see LOAC as a thing of its time. When you have all the hi-tech gizmos of course you can afford to be picky about what you use and how you use it. When you have a World War that you
MUST win then you have to use everything that will enable you to do so. Had BC not done so and we had not won, then it would have violated LOAC, not only for its own population but for every other one that remained unliberated. How it applies to wars that you want to win but can bear losing I don't know, but then justice goes to the victors of course (unless they be Brits it would seem).
Thank you for explaining modern thinking, oh and please forgive my confusing the Typhoon with the Tornado. Perhaps on reflection that is the one thing I will not be forgiven though;-)
As Orca says he cannot speak for the modern RAF vis a vis its attitude to the WWII Bombing Offensive, is there anyone who can? I suspect that Danny42C would share my interest in that. He's a bit of a new kid on the block, a bit wet behind the ears as it were, but as he speaks with direct knowledge of events back then we might all learn something if we pay attention to him.
Danny, great to see you posting here as well as on the WWII Pilots Brevet thread. Thank you for your kind words and the pithy way you tell it as it is. For what it's worth I much prefer that approach than the jargon and sound bites that wrap up everything these days, but as Orca says we shouldn't skirt issues but tackle them head on. So lets get on and do so.....