That's a very graphic visualisation. You've got to wonder if every one saw and understood this whether there would be greater tolerance and understanding to avoid war...
I don't think that's how humans work. We know that bombing is awful, but we also "know" that the people we are bombing are the enemy and deserve to be blown up.
The thing to avoid is dehumanizing and vilifying groups of people.
I agree with that when it comes to starting a war as an aggressor --but not as a defensive war. I mean, if someone is coming to get you and they have vilified you or for whatever reason have decided to wage war against your group, it would be utter folly to say, well, it's wrong to dehumanize and vilify the enemy, unless you propose getting rolled over is an acceptable alternative.
There is that possibility --and we saw that in WWii with German prisoners of war captured by Soviet forces. On the other side US forces were much kinder to German PoWs, but that's perhaps because it wasn't as personal a war to us.
Ethics and morality don't help win wars --but they are good PR post war, if you are the winner.
There is no clean answer to this problem because your enemy will by all means take advantage of your self-imposed constraints. Osama even admitted fighting the Soviets was very, very hard fought --and fighting the Americans would be a much easier task in his view. Here is one place I might agree with his assessment.
If I kept insisting that all of your property and goods were mine, your wife and children and family were mine(TBH I don't care about the children or old people, I'll just kill them when convenient), at what point would you just give up and say 'Okay, fine, it's yours'?
In a theoretical world of 2 people, sure. The assumption here is that we avoid it collectively, not individually. There's a non-technical, non-material, cultural component; the civil in civilization, the social in society. There's an underlying assumption that just as we strive for say better technology and transport, we strive for better civil and social relationships collectively.
Our ability to structure our relationships, cities, and fundamental interactions in non-destructive ways that avoid disaster is just as much a technology and science of an advanced people as a mastery of metallurgy or physics.
This was fundamentally understood after WW2 by baby boomers parents but we've somehow collectively forgotten the pursuit. I really hope we don't need to have planetary catastrophe in order to reacquaint ourselves with merits of such projects.
it came about because those in power did see the results and understood its effect and saw it as a means to get what they wanted.
it also was seen as about the only way to prevent another nation from actually getting their desired result in starting such a war. WW2 ended because allied forced destroyed both the people and means of production of their enemies. While the people were more mobile than means of production their spirit can be broken to where they are no longer productive which further undermines the regime.
hence we moved after WW2 into a generation where nuclear weapons could do the same but were so efficient at it that neither side dared to use them. both major powers are rational people led by rational people regardless of what the press would have you believe. why are they rational? because for the most part they want to protect their people and way of life instead of prioritizing their leadership.
it is the nations where the leadership is afraid of losing power to its own people than nuclear and biological weapons become dangerous to the world.
I’m not sure if your comment refers to the bombing or the war as a whole. The bombing didn’t hinder production and the people spirit was not broken (whatever that means). German production was rising consistently until the very end. Speer was instrumental in organising German industry to avoid pinch points that could be targeted and allied bombing was ludicrously inaccurate.
Occupation, damage to transport and lack of fuel were far more of a problem for industry. There is a very good argument it be made that that bombing was was a colossal waste of time, lives and effort.
