The debate between Neelix and Jetrel resembles the debate that took place before the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was discussed dropping the bomb in an uninhabited area in the Pacific to demonstrate its power, but it was ultimately decided that wouldn't be a powerful enough message so Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen.
Ultimately, the rationale was that nuking Japan would have shortened the war considerably, and caused a lot fewer deaths than a full scale invasion of Japan, which was heavily fortified against an invasion. The team of scientists from the Manhattan Project, led by
J. Robert Oppenheimer, predicted casualty rates of 66,000 dead & 69,000 injured in Hiroshima, and 39,000 dead & 25,000 injured in Nagasaki; for a total of 105,000 dead and 94,000 injured. However, even conservative projections by Allied military strategists for a land invasion of Japan projected the war lasting at least another 3-5 years, and estimated a minimum of 250,000 casualties on both sides, with likely casualties of 350,000 - 400,000, with high civilian casualties, if the war continued for another 5 years; worst-case scenario estimates that took into account Japan's likely plan for a suicidal defense, including kamikaze attacks by their military and civilians, estimated casualties of well over 1 million. The actual casualties from the nuclear bombs wound up being higher than estimated, the initial blasts killed an estimated 110,000 between both cities, by the end of 1945 the death toll was estimated to be 200,000 - 215,000 from injuries and radiation poisoning, with many more dying in the decades following from cancer due to radiation exposure. Whether or not using nuclear weapons on Japan actually caused fewer deaths than a full scale invasion is still debated by experts, but ultimately it is something that will never be known.