I didn't name the option because it was implied. The option was: don't use the nuclear bombs. Everything else stays the same. The Japanese would have still surrendered within the same timeframe. There would have been no stretched out negotiations for precisely the reason i laid out, namely that every day that they did not surrender their position wrt the Soviet Union became worse and worse. And there is no evidence to suggest that the bombing of civilians, either in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or in the firebombing of Tokyo and other cities, did anything whatsoever to bring about the unconditional surrender any faster.

Murdering civilians does not compel fascist regimes to surrender because - newsflash! - fascists don't value human life. The bombings of civilians in Germany by the western allies also had no effect on the timing of the Nazi defeat, and neither did the same actions in Japan. And in fact this does not just apply to fascist states, killing civilians is simply not an effective strategy in war in general. The Nazis didn't achieve anything with their bombing raids on London, they would have been better off had they kept focusing on military targets. Killing civilians in the erroneous belief that this will intimidate your enemy into surrender is called terrorism, and moral judgements aside it is simply a fact that that is a counterproductive strategy.

Nowadays the Kiev Nazi regime are also under the similar delusion that if they just hit enough civilian targets in Russia this will somehow destabilize Russia or scare Putin into backing off. It is not working, and entirely unsurprisingly is having the exact opposite effect.