YES
The atomic bomb was far more useful as a propaganda tool than a military weapon. Sure, it packed a huge punch, compared to conventional weapons, but the Japanese knew how many bombers we had, and the thought that if a single plane with a single bomb could devastate an entire city, imagine what a fleet of planes with those bombs would do. It was a huge incentive for them to give up.
Had the USA funneled the resources used for the A-bomb into building more planes, ships, etc. they could have been used to kill a lot more people than with the few Bombs it had on hand by the end of the war.
I believe that the end result was actually winning the war more quickly, with lower loss of life on both sides. After all, the idea is (supposed to be, we might want to let our politicians know about this) to win the war as quickly as possible. Unless one is evil, the idea isn't to kill as many of the other side as possible. You want to vanquish and defeat the enemy, not lay his people to waste. The killing and destruction of was is a part of the process, not the ultimate goal, unless, as I stated before, one is evil.
Mark
I believe you misunderstood my question. I referred to “moral difference,” not “morale difference.”
There is no question the Bomb greatly demoralized the Japanese and led directly to their capitulation. I do not question that.
My question is why opponents of the use of the Bomb seem to consider it entirely right and proper to kill 100,000+ civilians in Tokyo by a 1000+ plane fire bombing attack, yet morally wrong to kill a similar number in Hiroshima using a single Bomb.
If killing civilians is wrong, then it is always and ever wrong, although sometimes unavoidable. The method or weapon used for the killing is not the most important issue.
The war isn't over until the enemy's will to fight is broken.
Unless one is evil, the idea isn't to kill as many of the other side as possible.
The idea is to kill as many as it takes to break the enemy's will.
That can be many or few, it all depends on the enemy. If, in the case of islamists, it is all 1.3 billion of them, I can live with that. Especially since the only alternative islam offers its opponents is a quick bloody death or the slower death of abject slavery.