Well, maybe. I'll have to get around to double-checking on the evidence presented for it. Thing is, the theory would based on evidence - Ie. did Japan or did it not actually offer surrender with the condition of a request that Hirohito remain on the throne? If so, what more is they to say? I do recall being presented with such evidence, but whether it exists within my own library of books on World War II(most of which are actually centred upon the Eastern Front, and few of which account the Pacific Theatre) I cannot guarantee at present. Still, I must conjecture that my lecturers were more familiar with such evidence than I, accounting for their conclusion that the former theory be termed 'discredited'. Any evidence TO that effect would surely be far more solid than a theoretical estimate of how many casualties would be incurred by a land-based invasion coupled to a somewhat dubious supposition that Japan was not likely to sue for peace without being subjected to either said invasion or an atomic bomb or two. A theorheticical forecast, admittedly one made by professionals, but nonetheless open to interpretation. No more valid than any warning against it predicting that it sets a dangerous precedent that future wars might also be settled in a like fashion by America's enemies, which seems to be a real possibility now. Just as surely as Saddam's missile strikes against Israel can be seen as an echo of Hitler's V-rocket attacks against Britain, it's also pretty well accepted that he'd also like to apply a nuclear attack upon the US as soon as he can.