No, sorry, I'm not having this.
Sorry to hear that but frankly you're more wrong than right and your reasoning isn't taking into account the facts on the ground in either the US or Japan at the time
Half a million American soldier were not going to die if we didn't use the nukes. Read American Prometheus or something. There were already plans to schedule peace talks with Japan for surrender.
If the invasion went forward that was considered a 'low-ball' estimate of American casualites and about two to three times that for the Japanese. The Japanese put their casualties much higher and a bit lower than that for the Americans and were assuming that would be enough to get the Americans to the negotiating table. They had continually made this mistake several times including basing most of their pre-war planning on this being a 'fact' about Americans and causalities.
The idea of "Peace Talks" essentially has a proviso that both sides are both willing and able to come to some basic terms. There was zero indication that the Japanese were going to come with any reasonable, (to the Allies) expectations and this was reinforced over and over again even after the bombings.
There were plans to either have members of the Japanese government observe a bomb test to threaten them with a show of force, or to drop a single nuke on an explicitly-military target.
Those plans were highly tentative as it was known that any high ranking Japanese official would likely be neither believed nor allowed to speak of what he/they had seen. This was based on known issues with "bad" new within the Imperial Council and was pretty much proven out when said council refused to accept the news of the first attack and still questioned the second. Even when they accepted the attacks they did not consider it justification for surrender under the Allied terms. That's important.
A MINOR consideration by the way was it was understood that the Japanese WOULD defend an "explicitly-military" target if attacked which would put more lives in danger as MOST such targets were outside of Japan in still contested areas.
There was absolutely no excuse to drop two nuclear weapons on civilian population centers and Truman and all of his advisors should have been charged for war crimes.
At that point in the war there WERE no 'civilian' or "explicitly-military" targets. Hiroshima and Nagasaki both were used for and has extensive military utility and production. Both were legitimate military targets and even the Japanese acknowledged this. Again you ignore that both sides considered this total war and any and all production and population centers were 'legitimate' targets.
It was a show of force to get the Japanese to surrender to us before they surrendered to the Soviets, and an attempted power play against Stalin that didn't work because all it did was make Stalin want some nukes of his own.
This was already planned out before Stalin even agreed to enter the war on Japan. In fact it was assumed that he would actually hold to the non-aggression pact long than he did as like everyone else his majority focus was in Europe not Asia. He was already working on his own bomb project so nothing the US did by dropping one was going to effect that.
Really, though, I'm not shocked that everyone and their mother on this forum is jumping in here to insist that using nuclear weapons on civilian populations was the best and right thing to do, and that not using them would have just made the world worse.
Which essentially points out how much you don't understand history or how nations interact. No one here has advocated for the use of the bombs but we have gone into detail as to the rationale and background that lead to their use. Using nuclear weapon on civilians is no more 'acceptable' than using poison gas or biological agents but those too were accepted into the arsenal to be used on Japan if the war continued. Japan planned on the same tactics and use and would have used nuclear weapons on America if they had had them and a means to deliver them. It was that kind of war.
This place has a fetish for genocide, misery, and bloodshed. It's why there's a hundred thousand "What if the Nazis won" or "How evil can Stalin be?" or "How long could we go without freeing the slaves" or "How would you, personally, exterminate [Ethnicity X]?" threads for every three or five "What if the US never had slavery" or "What if we didn't fuck up the middle east" threads. And whenever those threads do get made, nine times out of ten they're written off as "Utopian" or "Naive" or "boring". Like we need to accept that we're living in the best of all possible timelines, or that things suck, sure, but they could have been so much worse, so shut the fuck up already. Like trying to even imagine a better world is intellectually inferior, that the only good use of your time is to imagine how much worse things could be. Or, perhaps more accurately, how much worse they could be for everyone else.
Considering about half those possible threads are in fact a banning offense I highly doubt you actually read a majority of these forums. Utopia's DO tend to be less than stellar reading but the key there is to make how you got there interesting rather than the end result itself. And I would like to see you start a poll on the idea that "this" is the best time line ever
As i pointed out earlier your grasp of actual history is a bit lacking so therefore I can see how you might think that a lot of threads start with the premise of "what's the worst that could happen" but it's really a lot deeper than that. I suggest studying some real history and then coming back and reading.
Randy