Perhaps a broader perspective is in order.
Why fight at all?
Why not negotiate?
Why not just surrender?
The flaw in looking at an individual military action in isolation is that violence nearly universally "looks wrong".
The CONTEXT matters.
What was happening to the countries that got conquered? One poster wisely pointed to a Polish city that got hammered.
The carnage in China and the Soviet Union was staggering. 60M to 70M died in this war, most of them civilians.
Keeping OUR CIVILIANS safe was the primary concern. Enemy civilians not as much.
Germany never really consolidated and optimized the industrial capacity it had conquered.
Could we afford to give them time to do that?
Our leaders at the time answered the three questions above.
Weighed the risks and went to war.
The context being:
- We were attacked
- Losing looked like a real bad deal
So risking your soldiers amounts to risking losing. Losing means your population will likely be treated like other folks recently conquered.
Because your soldiers are all that is standing between armies that have been slaughtering civilians, and your women, children and elderly.
So leadership has a responsibility to keep its military intact, and not risk them to benefit the enemy in any way.
Why do you suppose Chuchill went to such extraordinary measures to get the British Army out of Dunkirk?
Those men had extreme value in the defense of Britain. Churchill knew that his people needed these soldiers.
What happens to your civilians when you lose?
Ask the Chinese, Russians and Poles.
You need to win.
What are your options?
What are the risks?
LeMay was a Great American. He was and is hated.
LeMay looked at the bombing campaigns in Europe, and saw that the Brits area bombed at night, and the Americans "precision bombed" during the day.
Both approaches were flawed in his view, but the Brits were doing a better job with less resources and fewer losses.
LeMay changed the mix to more heavily fire bombing. He also benefited from long range fighter escorts (P51 & P47 with drop tanks).
LeMay's fire bombing raids were massively more destructive. Around VE day, LeMay was sent to the Pacific, and began fire bombing Japan.
Fire bombing worked better there because of the building materials used.
Rapidly much of Japan's workforce was "homeless". They became far less effective at supplying their military.
LeMay was not told about the Atomic Bomb until it was about to happen. LeMay, ironically objected. Ironic because his Fire Bombing raid on Tokyo was the most destructive ever.
LeMay thought there was no need to use the atomic weapons because with the newly available bombers stationed in Europe, the fire bombing campaign would have the capacity
to destroy Japan. Within the Air Force, LeMay was never given the respect he deserved. He was hated for "giving up on" precision bombing, and flying the B29 at low level to save fuel and add payload.
(both of these moves were brilliant)
LeMay was practical and effective. He waged the war that needed to be waged. And was prepared to win even without atomic weapons.
I speculate that LeMay considered the atomic bombs too valuable to waste on targets that could be destroyed more cost effectively.
So, LeMay wanted to hold them back in case we needed them in a fight with the Soviet Union. While I concur, there was also value in
demonstrating their power to the world... especially to the Soviet Union.
Consider the nearly 7 decades of relative peace since this war. LeMay went on to command the Strategic Air Command (1948 to 1957).
What was at stake when LeMay switched to fire bombing in Europe?
Quite a lot.
Counter factual for context:
Let's say we put LeMay in charge of bombing a year earlier, and shorten the war by 6 months. (both theaters).
How many of the 60M-70M deaths would have been prevented. The war was 6 years long, so an average 6 months is over 5M deaths.
This ignores the late ramp up of death camps by the Germans, the the number would likely be much higher.
Oh, and the atomic bombs would not have been dropped.
The math also works in the other direction... what if we though LeMay was not a good idea, and the war lasted 6 months longer?
Hint: We drop the atomic bombs on Germany in addition to 5M additional deaths minimum.