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.
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.
You're right then. I did misunderstand your question. As with you, I don't see much difference between the two. IIRC, the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo caused greater loss of life than the atomic bombings, but I could be wrong. It must be a "liberal thing."
Mark