Ngl, your comment drove me to read up on everything preceding the bombing, right up to Japan's brutal occupation of China and subsequent decision to invade pearl harbor in the hope of crippling the US long enough that they could secure oil reserves to continue their conquests. Pretty wild.

The US cut off Japan's oil supply due Japan's aggressive foreign policy in Asia. The decision to attack the US was also controversial in the Japanese government.

If you are going to make the argument that Japan was justified in attacking the US due to the oil embargo, then you are also justifying other actions like the British overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh and the installation of the Shah of Iran.

How does nuking multiple cities not contribute to the American war effort?

There are 1000 decision making paths you can follow in regards to the atomic bombing of Japan, which wasn't decided lightly, but ultimately the prevailing understanding is correct.

This "holier than thou" alternate history thing you have going on is, sorry to say, it's delusional.

I agree with this comment but I don’t think it qualifies as a genocide, “just” a horrifying unwarranted act of war.

US schools teach that the atom bombs were used as an alternative to an invasion of Japan. The numbers said millions would die on both sides if the Allies staged an invasion. Instead, the largest estimated loss ended up being 226,000 Japanese.

The second bomb was dropped because the military leadership in Japan couldn't believe the destruction from one bomb wasn't just another night raid that was super effective and refused to surrender. Then the second bomb dropped, and immediate unconditional surrender was issued