But the cost of an alternate strategy could have been incredibly high for the U.S. The existing alternate strategy was arguably much higher then the devastation wrought by the atomic bomb. It should be presumed that the U.S. would continue the mass bombing of cities despite the fact that mass civilian bombing has/had no track record of ending a war or lessening moral. A big firebombing kills about as many people in and attack as a nuclear bombing. An alternate strategy would probably have had a more negative impact for Japan in total destruction and lives lost.

What makes you think that this decision was

strongly colord by racism

? I'll give you the fact that internment of the Japanese was a policy based on race and the idea that a Japanese american could be more loyal to Japan then the U.S. but as far as dropping the bomb is concerned I don't think they did it because they had an irrational racial hatred for the Japanese. The Japanese were ferocious opponents culturally able to perform acts of resistance, self sacrifice, barbarism and heroism to a degree that U.S. troops just couldn't match. The U.S. had an edge in technology, which is the only reason it won the war. Without radar, code breaking and intelligence I don't think we would have ever gotten to Japan. The last big edge to get out of the final slug fest was the bomb. While the using the bomb is obviously a crime against humanity, I can relate to not wanting to sacrifice more soldiers lives to preserve the lives of the those who started the war.

I have read a bit about WWII and the pacific specifically, it has always seemed to me that the motives for any strategic action were winning the war, not killing Japanese because they are Japanese.