The Rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death March, rape of women WERE crimes under the ancient rules of war, hence the Japanese were prosecuted for war crimes (and justly so). The other acts were against purely military targets, not against defenseless babies in cradles and strollers. If we truly had adopted "the all is fair in war approach" advocated by many apologists for the bombs, we would have let them bask in retirement along with Harry Truman. Thanks for helping to illustrate my point.
If we had accepted “all’s fair in war,” we would have just killed all of them, something we did not do. I’m still wondering how many aircraft carriers were allowed under your ancient rules of war, as well as who, historically, ever followed such a thing. Slavery is an ancient institution, as well as rape, mass theft of goods by marching armies, and poisoning wells by dropping dead animals into them. All of these were part of ancient wars. So was corruption of blood, a practice that goes back to the Old Testament era, and was banned relatively recently.
I’m curious from where you got these ancient rules of war. From what I’ve studied about war, commanders often quit the field when it was obvious that they lost the battle. I pointed out the Japanese stands on Iwo, etc., because they clearly illustrate that the aggressor had no intention to fight by any real or imagined chivalric code.
So where did you get these ancient rules of war, and why do you think that when an aggressor ignores those rules, the other side should follow them anyway? It sounds like the ideal way to lose.