Jane-DoH:
What goes into factoring criminality into an act isn't just the act itself, but the intention of the act. If the intention was to flatten cities and kill civilians -- then it's a war-crime. If the intention wasn't to -- it isn't. It's the same reason that manslaughter gets a lighter sentence than say premeditated murder.
The RAF's aim was to flatten cities and, uh, "de-house the working population" which was basically a pretext for attacking civilians. Of course, any time the USAAF was operating with the intention of flattening cities and killing civilians en masse -- then it would too be a war-crime.
What a pathetic position to take. Even Nuremberg convicted on actions taken or orders given rather than announced grandiose intent. If you think that defence would have counted (not that any would have of course) in a War Crimes trial conducted by the victorious Nazis you would have been very much in error. The announced policy of the USAAF Strategic Bombing Campaign of precision bombing flew in the face of what it actually did as exampled in the figures that you query, which appear on p321 of "The Bomber Offensive" by Anthony Verrier, pub Batsford 1968. For goodness sake, what kind of precision are you going to get with all but one bomber in a group releasing their bombs after they see the lead bomber drop its? Get real about USA dropping accuracy and get real about the real world. You keep quoting the Hague Conventions of 1907 as though they restricted the conduct of war thereafter. Submarines began their operations by inviting the crews of Merchant Ships to abandon them prior to sinking by shellfire. The real world soon put paid to that nicety. WWII was indeed total, ie it directly involved the mobilisation of entire populations be they civil or military, not because Douhet or Uncle Tom Cobbley had forecast it, but because technology made it possible. That is the real world that we live in now. You asked me if I was content to live in a world faced with instant annihilation. No, of course not, but I am realistic enough to realise that unlike 1907 that is where we are now. Just because wars post WWII have been limited ones, it does not mean that we are finished with total ones. Time will tell. Let us all pray that we are spared that, but conventions certainly wont do it, only the balance of power (a pretty way of saying MAD) will. You may be sickened by the way WWII was won by us, personally I am simply sickened by war period. If it cannot be avoided, you fight hard from the start to finish it as soon as possible and do not let up until you have won. That is how Harris fought the Bombing Campaign. Supposing he had eased off in 1944, because " the war was obviously won", and Hitler had been able to get the V5 and even later vengeance weapons operational, not against the Allied Armies, or even England, but against the US East Coast cities which were their target? Would you still be sure that Harris was now right instead of condemning him for fighting to the end? To my mind that would have been the real war crime, but hey, they're your cities not mine.