The cost of ground troops is hundreds of thousands of casualties. It can be argued that there are very real practical and political problems with that prospect as well.Politically and practically, it's more reliable and probably more effective to use existing and available ground troops than a small number of weapons that need better control of the air than the allies had. Given that troops were coming in from both east and west, defeat was inevitable and only the cost of the allied win was going to change. Nuclear bombs could have helped against specific objectives, but creating the circumstances where nuclear bombs could be used would likely be similar effort to overruning them with ground troops.
But for sub pens a daring minisub raid could pave the way for invasion by removing an alt-Uboat threat. It could make a pretty good film - when casting it, please can I have a minor role as a white coated scientist for Tube Alloys?
After WW1, it was important to send a message that Germany had not only lost but been thoroughly beaten to avoid "Ah, but we would have won without the bomb/ the stab in the back/ losing millions to satisfy some madman's inadequacies...", so nukes or not an occupation would have been needed.
Even with the war situation being held back a year, Allied control of the air is both well established and inevitable to grind further on. With the Russians back in the Ukraine and in a general position pre Bagration and the WAllies either back in France or not even on the Continent, the pressure for strategic use of the atomic bomb is going to be high, rather than tactical employment.