You have missed the point. Murder is always wrong, no matter how desirable some of its effects are.
Is it okay for a wife to poison her husband if she stands to inherit $10, or $10,000, or $100,000,000,000? Is it okay to kill a baby if it means being able to go to the prom, or to finish college, or to win a beauty contest?
Once you say that you can murder people if the purpose is good enough, then the decision about WHEN the purpose is good enough is entirely up to the murderer and nobody else.
If you argue that dropping the bombs on Japan saved a few million Americans and Japanese, I can say that dropping the bombs established the principle by which both the Japanese and Americans have murdered tens of millions of their own babies. And we would both be right.
No, you miss the point. Murder is not properly used for defining the sort of deaths in war that we are talking about. Your use of murder is false and your examples are a false dichotomy. Apples and oranges as they say.
Murder is always wrong, by defintion. However, you have not proven that the aerial bombings that we are discussing constitute murder.
On a related point, I'd argue on the basis of Scripture that telling a malicious lie is always wrong. Wouldn't you agree?