The use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified as a form of injustice as it aimed at bringing about more rapid success and preventing the execution and deaths of more Americans. However, it was inhuman and immoral to use nuclear weapons, given the prior knowledge that it would kill innocent civilians and destroy most urban social environments. After the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in August, all the Japanese military was destroyed.
More destruction of urban environments and further blockades would have led to surrender in August or September without applying excessive forces and invasion, such as the use of nuclear weapons in the form of atomic bombs. The second atomic bomb on Nagasaki was unnecessary, just like the first one, although the Americans were looking for a different design and approach to deal with their enemies in World War II. There was also a significant difference between nuclear weapons in the form of atomic bombs and conventional bombing (Mawdsley, 2020). This was evident in the Hamburg or Tokyo conventional bombing compared to the adverse effects of the Hiroshima nuclear bombing.
The Hiroshima bombing was a moral violation and was condemned by the firebombing campaign. The firebombing campaign was against the use of atomic weapons in the form of nuclear bombs as it was aimed at urban centers and completely discriminatory. In recent times, the use of nuclear weapons poses extensive threats to the citizens and the environment. Besides, their use may never match the standards of a safe and sustainable energy source. The environmental and human threats caused by nuclear weapons include environmental degradation from uranium excavation, health risks, and accidents brought about by nuclear power. Therefore, it was unnecessary to use nuclear weapons in World War II due to their devastating effects on humans and the environment considering there were other effective methods.
Reference
Mawdsley, E. (2020). World War II: A new history (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.