Pacifier

yes, but how can you still claim an invasion would have costed X-thousands of american lives?
How can you still claim that it would have costed X-thousand americans lives if you didn't tried?
That claim is just a "what if", highly speculative, but it is always presented as "fact".

This is not about what should have done instead, but also how to view and value the events afterwards.


And again:
Some have claimed that the Japanese were already essentially defeated, and therefore use of the bombs was unnecessary. General Dwight D. Eisenhower so advised the Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, in July of 1945. [12] The highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater, General Douglas MacArthur, was not consulted beforehand, but said afterward that there was no military justification for the bombings.

I question your justification. IMO the "we saved lives" claim is wrong, there would have been multiple other option to save lives wothout dropping the bombs, also both bombs were dropped in quick succession which also makes the claim unbelievable. The biggest reason for the bomb was to show the Russians the finger.

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein