Not a bad argument.

However sometimes the casualty caused cannot simply be

measured solely on numbers, but the manner of how the soldiers died as well by the
chemical weapons.
Also, it is likely not his misjudgment of morality, but rather his hubris that made
him pursue the development of chemical weapons.

Good take on the issue. But it might be a bit naïve to over simpifly the tension
of war. There is a lot of nuance to conflict.

We shouldn't take this as a balance between good acts done in his life weighing
against the evil acts. That's simply not how morality works. We should celebrate
his achievement and simultaneously condemn him for his work against humanity.

Is hard work and determination enough? Or is it survivor bias that we are looking
at here. I'm sure others have worked just as hard and had as much determination as
Haber did. Many chemists were working on the same problem back then too, were they
not as deserving?