Take off your red white and blue colored glasses and try a little critical thinkng.
If you don't understand how brutal you must be to win a fight to the death, no one can help you.
Germany bombed civilians.. so we did too. Japan committed many atrocities.. so we showed them there was a cost to that.
No one wants to do those things juts to do them.. it is a question of winning the war and ending it as quickly as possible.. while not being the first to raise the level of aggression.
Atomic bombs.. totally justified. As you noted, we had firebombed Japan's cities and manufacturing centers and that did not drive them to capitulate even though they must have known they would lose and that we could accept nothing but total victory. Using the atom bombs changed that.. and it took two of them to do so.. even though those bombs were not more destructive than the firebombing raids.
At the end of the first Gulf War I heard a co-worker complaining about the projected number of Iraqi dead compared to American dead. I forget the exact numbers tossed around at the time, but including deaths from the lasting effects of lost infrastructure.. the numbers were going to be something like 100K military and 100K civilians in the aftermath.. compared to 149 American dead.
So I asked him, and am now asking you... you are now President of the United States.. you are brought 2 options for a war plan to defeat Iraq who has just invaded an ally, Kuwait and threatens another, Saudi Arabia.
Option A: (what really happened) 100K Iraqi dead and 149 Americans
Option B: 25K Iraqi dead and 25K American dead
Both options result in victory and the same political outcome and results in treaties, etc. Exactly the same result, just number of dead differs.
Which do you choose?