Were the bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki morally justified?

[politicus]

Nuclear weapons did not cause the relative peace of postwar society.

Not by themselves (monocausality is for simpletons), but their existence certainly played a role in preventing a WW3.

[politicus]

Good side of the nuclear weapons: no direct conflict between superpowers after 1945.
Korea, Vietnam (...) and Afganistan are small countries.

You can make at least two new polls with that.

1) Are proxy conflicts between superpowers morally justified?

2) Was Agent Orange morally justified?

3 (Optional) Was there a connection between Osama Bin Laden, the US and Afghanistan? Was morally justified supporting that guy?

Claiming that there was a "good side" in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki... or Dresden and Tokyo for that matter... Japan was already defeated in August 1945, as it was Germany in February of that year. It was only a question of time.

And a lot of dead GIs.. An invasion of the Japanese mainland would have been extremely bloody.

[politicus]

I know the phrase "winners write history" is trite nonsense for the most part, but it is interesting to consider. Is such an act only immoral if you lose?

Its a basic fact, not nonsense.