Answer:
It was a morally wrong decision to drop the atomic bombs.
Step-by-step explanation:
This is a heavily debated opinion-based question where you can go both ways. In my personal opinion, I personally argue that it was morally wrong for the US to use atomic weapons on Japan. Below is my reasoning.
1. Japan had already expressed the desire to surrender previous to the dropping of the atomic bombs, meaning that they were not a military necessity.
Prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs, Japan had already expressed the desire to surrender under the single condition that their emperor would not be harmed. (This was mainly due to cultural reasons that made the emperor a particularly important figure) Instead of accepting, the United States instead decided to fight for unconditional surrender. While they did achieve that in the end, they ended up not harming the emperor anyway, meaning that they could have just accepted Japan's surrender in my personal opinion. Moreover, this desire disproves the argument that the decision to drop the bomb was a military necessity and many contribute Japan's surrender more so to the Soviet invasion of Manchuria which meant Japan now had to fight a two-front war.
2. Atomic weapons are a form of indiscriminite killing.
Atomic weapons don't have eyes. They can't tell the difference between the military and civilians. Thousands of women and children were killed that had no involvement in the war. It is a war crime to intentionally target civilians, so why would atomic weapons be ethically acceptable? While the US did drop leaflets to warn civilians prior to the attacks, this act is not enough, and it cannot be expected for millions to flee thier homes.
3. The government may have been considering diplomatic reasons rather than solely ending the war.
If the US was really after a speedy end to the end of the war, there could have been many other ways to go about it. They could have continued to firebomb cities or accept conditional surrender. Some have argued that the diplomatic effects that came with it such as scaring the Soviets and proving US dominance were also in policymakers' minds. If the US had not been victorious in World War II, several important members of the government would have likely been tried as war criminals.
The Counter Argument:
Of course, there is also a qualified opposing view when it comes to this. It is perfectly valid to argue that the bomb was necessary for ending the war: as it is impossible to know the "what ifs" had history not happened the way it did. It is undeniable that the atomic bomb likely saved thousands of American lives if the war would have continued, and the war did ultimately come to an end a couple of days after the atomic bombs. There also is not enough evidence as to what exactly was the reason the Japanese unconditionally surrendered: it could have been Manchuria or the atomic bomb, both, or even other reasons entirely. Lastly, the general public did approve of the bombings at the time.
In recent years, the public have slowly become more critical of the bombings, although it remains a weighted moral debate.
Note: These are my personal views and this does explicitly represent the views of anyone else. Please let me know if you have any questions :)