The second bomb is more difficult to justify than the first, true, but I do find the morality of the first bomb ambiguous. The article itself indicates that to

The second bomb is more difficult to justify than the first, true, but I do find the morality of the first bomb ambiguous. The article itself indicates that to the Japanese military leaders, surrender was not an option; with civilians considering killing their family when the enemy invades, I don't think that surrender was being considered. The amorality of the atomic bomb is sometimes attributed to civilian casualties, but soldiers are humans too, and saving soldier lives actually has value. And although some might say that soldiers chose to be in the war voluntarily, this should not be used against soldiers. Otherwise less soldiers will volunteer, making the draft inevitable. And having soldiers and an army in a large country is a necessity. If such a country has an inadequate army it does not get peace, it gets invaded. I do not like to imagine what would have happened to the US if its army were not stronger than the Japanese army.