However, in the end I came to the conclusion that the nuclear strikes weren't necessary, and I wouldn't have ordered them simply because a the war was already incredibly one-sided, and an invasion wouldn't have been necessary in the first place since Japan was already on its last legs.

Then how does the war end, in your scenario?

US casualty estimates were over a million soldiers

Those estimates have actually grown enormously as the years have passed, not surprisingly in parallel with the growth in criticism of the US for using the atomic bombs on Japanese cities. Estimates at the time were in the neighborhood of 50,000 allied casualties (where "casualties" include wounded and captured as well as killed); Truman at one point started throwing out 500,000 dead as a round number, and now in modern times we have "over a million" as a common estimate. In reality, who knows? One of the options being considered at the time as an alternative to invasion was just to continue the conventional firebombing as well as the submarine-based blockade of all of Japan's shipping, and starving Japan into eventual surrender without incurring a very high number of allied casualties in the process.

It's worth noting that a three-day firebombing campaign against Tokyo in March 1943 (using conventional ordinance) produced more Japanese casualties than did the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings combined.

The class ended up convicting me of a war crime, which was nice.

Children are more competent than our international institutions, that's reassuring.

In 9th grade US history we held a mock trial about the nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Holy shit. That's a hell of an assignment for 14 year olds. Military historians and experts today debate the efficacy of the nuclear strikes and the jury is still out on if they were better than not.

You came to the conclusion that it was better to kill 1,000,000 people bare minimum than 226,000 people upper estimate?

I feel like when presented with those options you're directly responsible for every life you didn't save.

Even though I am an American, my primary school education is from a school for British expats so my WWII knowledge is mostly European focused. What was the beef between the US and Japan that led to the bombing of Pearl Harbor?

I don't understand why they threw two bombs. Only would have been plenty if they wanted to prove a point.

Probably would have resulted in nukes being used anyways, but only after millions of deaths on both sides.

That's most likely the result of a lot of dust/dirt and wind I think.

The level they were willing to go would have made insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan seem tame. even the elderly in some cases were being given sharp sticks and expected to train on how to defend their given area.

I know a lot of people in the modern age abhor nuclear weapons and consider their existence crimes against humanity and their use in WW2 the greatest atrocities ever committed, but their use in 1945 factually saved the lives of hundreds of thousands on both sides, Japanese commitment to defending the home islands that intense it's entirely likely literal millions would have died in their defense, despite knowing it was inevitable a US force would eventually successfully gain control of most if not all the population centers and resources.

As a matter of fact, more people died in Tokyo from daily bombing raids in a single day than both atomic bombings.