If true, it makes the fact of not one but two large cities vaporized and thousands of civilians including many, many children made to slowly die in agony from radiation poisoning even more vile of an act, no?
Analogously, most people think it's moral for a SWAT team to shoot and kill a hostage taker. The fact that the hostage taker was actually going to release the hostage anyway (unbeknownst to the SWAT team) if he wasn't shot doesn't really change the morality of the shooting.
But really, 99% of the morality is decided by whether you think strategic bombing can ever be acceptable (either because you are a pure consequentialist, or because you subscribe to the Doctrine of Double Effect and accept that the bomb's actual target was the industrial base of the Japanese cities rather than their citizens).
President decided to ignore that and drop it on civilians first anyway. It's just military bloodlust.
Remember half the US was practically foaming at the mouth to kill any Japanese at that point (we even had concentration camps for Japanese-Americans) so the mentality was there would be no repercussions, certainly no-one vocal enough to protest the morality.
Perhaps this is why the bombings are so divisive even to this day- that dividing line is really pure opinion, and you know what they say about opinions...
The question is, what about the Americans. Still controversial, after more than six decades. And I think will stay controversial for quite a while.
The Allies conditions for surrender by the Axis powers were for an unconditional surrender. All the Axis powers surrendered unconditionally regardless of whether they took an A-bomb or not.