there is a pretty big difference between civilian casualties during war.. and genocide..Yet they still wouldn't fully surrender because of wording. The US wanted UNCONDITIONAL surrender, the Japanese thought those terms were demeaning. Each side wanted the surrender their way. Does this mean the bombs were needed? No not at all, I haven't tried to defend the bombs at all really because an argument can be made either way about this and that and whatever. The real point is, they were given chances to surrender, every commander in the Pacific knew that Japan was done...and they still refused because of little things like wording and politics.
Its just funny how none of the wording or politics mattered anymore after the bombs were dropped. I don't know about anyone else, but after the million or so people died from the firebombings, I don't think it would take long to realize that a few words sounding demeaning or if it makes you look bad ...just doesn't matter anymore. Not like they were very honorable anyways, look what they did to the people of China and the other Asian countries they butchered. (kinda like the Nazi's huh)
Honestly, in all truth, the second bomb was only dropped to solidify American global strength, imo anyways.
Something else I want to point out as well. What is the difference between what the US did during the war, and what the USSR, Japan, Britain, Germany all did as well. They all committed mass civilian deaths, knowingly. Russia not only lost more people in the war than any other country, but also killed way more civilians than Germany ever did including the Jewish genocide Hitler tried to do.