I know there was such suggestion, but it still does not cover my full comment. Also "valuearb" says there was no chance, but I say there were alternative ways and indeed there were. Atomic bomb is costly and takes time to produce, but the US just took the easy path and it does not change the inhuman action for the two bombings to the cities.
You really should read a good history of the war. You don't understand how many people were still dying every day because of it, and how many more would die due to delays. You don't understand how committed Japanese military leadership was to fight to the end. You don't even understand that the Nuclear bombs weren't even the most deadly or inhumane bombings Japan endured.
>You really should read a good history of the war.
You only talk about one side of the history, and you should definitely learn from both sides.
> You don't understand how many people were still dying every day because of it, and how many more would die due to delays.
Only if the US tries to kill the non-combatants. It is not a natural disaster.
>You don't even understand that the Nuclear bombs weren't even the most deadly or inhumane bombings Japan endured.
You don't understand how atomic bomb survivors have been enduring physically for their whole life. It is different from a regular bomb. It is an inhuman action to use them for humans and the US is the only one who actually used it ever in the history.
The tl;dr is that it was suggested, but consensus was that a successful test would only bolster Japan's resolve.