I think that the firebombings reducing every city in Japan but Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Kobe (I think it was) to rubble, the mass starvation of the island due to our sinking virtually its entire merchant marine, the whole rolling juggernaut of defeats on godforsaken jungle islands most people in the USA couldn't even name the ocean they're in on the map, and August Storm had as much to do with the surrender as the atomic bombings did. The firebombing of Tokyo alone still has a death toll higher than both atomic bombings. We didn't even force Japan to a truly unconditional surrender and fight over every nook and cranny of it as happened with Germany and Italy.

Is it more moral to use one bomb to do the work of a fleet of bombers over time and kills less than the bomber fleet or to maintain a series of bomber sorties that do more damage over more time and kill more people, when both motivate surrenders?

The answer as to who won the Vietnam war is obvious: Hanoi.