The Cuban missile crisis

I’m not sure what the topic is.

I'll kick it off by saying I find it quite strange that Cuban cigars are still technically illegal in the USA.
Does the same apply to Cuban rum?

I think you may have had quite a bit of that rum.

I’m not sure what the topic is.

It's a vain attempt to get Chewk to post here rather than banging on about NATO in the Ukraine thread.

Does OP mean the Italian and Turkish Missile Crisis of 1961? Or the Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961?

@mattyfez - I’m with you now.

Look @chewk - squirrel!

Sorry - very late to the party (watching football) and didn’t realise what had kicked off on the Ukraine thread.

Of all the places to watch England get beaten by the yanks in the World Cup you’d think Cuba would be a safe place. Nope full of smug,smirking American faces.

It’s a vain attempt to get Chewk to post here rather than banging on about NATO in the Ukraine thread.

LOL! You don't have to create a thread here tbh. Thank you anyway. I don't think people want to know tbh.

As for the rest of the US/NATO supporter ...

Check this information out.

I mean look at the list LOL!

Does that mean this is a thread to kick US/NATO/West's double standards?

p/s: it's late .... I am out to listen to German Minimal Techno heavy bass music now

It did come rather close to wiping out the world though.
In many ways I cant really blame the Russians for wanting the weapons there. It would put them at roughly the same distance as the US equivalents in Turkey (which were withdrawn as part of the settlement albeit covertly).
We did get lucky with:
A good intelligence source giving a good idea of the Russian stance.
Vasily Arkhipov being on the sub.
Kennedy having read the guns of August recently and so being all to aware of what lack of talking between belligerents can do.

Vasily Arkhipov being on the sub.

In some ways, WWIII was averted just because of him disobeying orders as he read between the lines and acted appropriately.

Vasily Arkhipov being on the sub.

Well, at least he had the guts to disobey and to stand on the right side of history.

The same cannot be said of the WWII US "heroes" that dropped one atomic bomb each on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at peak hour with non-combatants in the cities. Not even one of them prepare to prevent the drops. One bomb is not enough, better return to try another city to make absolutely sure it works. That my friend was the first time "WMD" was properly tested on civilians by the victor or "heroes". It just shows that power resides in the victor.

But you're conveniently forgetting the bombing of peal harbour, that made the yanks quite angry.

But you conveniently the bombing of peal harbour, that made the yanks quite angry.

Yes, that was a cowardly attack but Japan when they tried to establish "legitimacy" via backdoor brute force.

As cowardly as the attack is, it is nothing by comparison to the two atomic bombs.

Mind you the Japanese occupation of SE Asia was not fun either, with the Japanese portraying themselves as super human.

Not, not trying to evade that at all.

The Rape of Nanjing was another atrocities committed by the Japanese army in those days. Plenty of other brutality in SE Asia too.

Isn’t this just troll entrapment? Shirley there must be laws against this.

Do you think the Japanese would not have used an atomic bomb if they'd had the option?

Isn’t this just troll entrapment? Shirley there must be laws against this.

Crikey, this is separate thread regarding near misses of the past or some of the atrocities that unfortunately happened.

Not sure if it is an entrapment but I don't think that way because when I mentioned Cuba in the other thread there seem to be few people considering it as off topic etc.

Therefore, focusing on Cuban missile crisis and the sanctions on Cuba is the right way to perhaps "balance" things up a bit.

Do you think the Japanese would not have used an atomic bomb if they’d had the option?

That's a good question but I think they would use it too. You know determination and all that.

Do you think the Japanese would not have used an atomic bomb if they’d had the option?

How is that relevant?

The Japanese did a lot of stuff during WW2 which I would not expect the Allies to have done.

it is nothing by comparison to the two atomic bombs.

Well, if you poke the hornets nest, don't be supprised when you get hornets.

Well, if you poke the hornets nest, don’t be supprised when you get hornets.

True, that's why I said history repeats itself.
Japan was strong but still a way behind USA and Russia in those days.

The same cannot be said of the WWII US “heroes” that dropped one atomic bomb each on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at peak hour with non-combatants in the cities

Ok but would that compare to the firebombing of Tokyo for example?
The latter required a lot more planes but in terms of damage...

Ok but would that compare to the firebombing of Tokyo for example?
The latter required a lot more planes but in terms of damage…

Can't compare to the atomic bomb at all. i.e. no way to hide.

Can’t compare to the atomic bomb at all.

Go on. Explain your reasoning in terms of destruction caused.
The primary advantage of the nuke was the one plane required. In terms of damage if you read about the firebombings they are truly horrifying.

Go on. Explain your reasoning in terms of destruction caused.
The primary advantage of the nuke was the one plane required. In terms of damage if you read about the firebombings they are truly horrifying.

The buildings in Japan were mainly wooden structures. Firebombings although caused devastation, there was still time to run etc but with atomic bomb everything just burned to ashes almost instantly regardless of plane. Japan was already incapable of air supremacy when the atom bombs were dropped.

In truth we'll never know if the use of nuclear weapons on Japan were "necessary".

It was likely that ever square inch of soil would have been won at an immense cost to the allies Americans.

That said, the Russians were advancing down towards Japan too. The home Islands could have been subjected to a total blockade extracting a huge toll on the Japanese population. That could have been worse than the nukes potentially.

The Americans no doubt wanted to study the effects of the bombs on a population too.

There was no easy answer and the Japanese were utterly brutal with the weapons they had at their disposal.

If nothing else, the world saw how utterly devastating the weapons were and that no doubt acted as a deterrent against using them again in a wider conflict.

Hopefully.

There can never be a moral justification for the use of nuclear weapons. Whether they cause the same level of destruction as conventional weapons (which they don't) is irrelevant to the moral argument against them.

Nuclear weapons must never be used - end of.

IMO

In truth we’ll never know if the use of nuclear weapons on Japan were “necessary”.

Japan knew they lost the war when they were defeated at the Battle of Midday. Their practically could not sustain themselves without the support of their naval power/logistic.

Nuclear weapons must never be used – end of.

True, but in history no matter how brutal the wars were conducted, the victor(s) always had a way to make it "legitimate".

Amongst the reasons of war in those days:

Resources
Economy
Ideology
Expansion/empire

But the most likely for Japan are probably resources and economy in those days.

Fast forward to 21st century where we are now. Look at the reasons for war. Can they be different to the four reasons?

Now compare that to the American bubble.

Do you think the Japanese would not have used an atomic bomb if they’d had the option?

How is that relevant?

Ernie - the point I was making was that chewkw was suggesting the Americans were in some way morally inferior by commenting on the fact that they dropped atomic bombs. I was pointing out that they're all barbaric. I'd also add that we're all victims of propaganda.

Amongst the reasons of war in those days:

Resources
Economy
Ideology
Expansion/empire

But the most likely for Japan are probably resources and economy in those days.

Fast forward to 21st century where we are now. Look at the reasons for war. Can they be different to the four reasons?

I don't think Expansion/empire is a reason beyond the three above. They are the drivers of expansion. Arguably resources and economy are one and the same, too.

I don’t think Expansion/empire is a reason beyond the three above. They are the drivers of expansion. Arguably resources and economy are one and the same, too.

They saw China as the great resources they can tap into and "easy" to conquer so the start of the superior complex. Historically, Japan was never occupied, submitted or invaded prior to WWII and even the Mongol could not could not occupy Japan.

Everything you need to know about Cuba here:

Everything you need to know about Cuba here:

LOL only if it is that easy.

Friends from South America all suffering the economy consequences at the moment i.e. Venezuela, Peru and Columbia (or Chile not exactly sure s/her origin).

Interesting, my Colombian friend is making a mint selling forestry waste to UK power plants.

In truth we’ll never know if the use of nuclear weapons on Japan were “necessary”.

They felt it necessary to test which of the two types they had produced the best results.

They singled out two cities that met the criteria needed for the tests.

Then recorded the results.

They felt it necessary to test which of the two types they had produced the best results.

Utter nonsense.
1. The implosion device (Trinity and Nagasaki) was a much more difficult technical challenge than the gun-type design (Hiroshima). The gun-type design was considered so safe that they didn't even test it before it was used in anger. They tested the implosion design first to make sure that it would actually work. The implosion design is much better, so all subsequent weapons are based on that. The gun-type design was pursued as a safe fall-back in case the much more difficult implosion design failed.

2. The reason they were used was because the U.S. wanted to end the war as quickly as possible. They had seen how fanatically Germans had resisted - they kept fighting long after any realistic hope of victory was gone. Japanese troops generally also fought to their deaths rather than surrendering. Trying to invade and occupy a country as large as Japan, with a lot of very rugged terrain, was a daunting task. The Japanese leadership knew that they could not beat the U.S., their aim was to make victory so costly that the U.S. would accept a negotiated peace, with the Imperial system retained. The U.S. flat-out rejected that. Invading and subduing Japan the same way they did in Germany would have cost tens or hundreds of thousands of U.S. lives, along with millions of Japanese. The atomic bomb had the potential to end the war quickly and save untold American lives. That's why the U.S. used them. The idea that they just wanted to test them is utter nonsense.

I like Cuba.

I'll not argue with you thols. The world is a wonderful place and the people in it fantastic individuals.

It did come rather close to wiping out the world though.

Although the Doomsday Clock says we are significantly closer to the end of the world right now than we were back then - it only reached 7 minutes to midnight during the Cuban Crisis and it's at 90 seconds to midnight right now.

Happy Easter

Nuclear weapons must never be used – end of.

Though it is probably their use in Japan that has led to this view.

It was likely that ever square inch of soil would have been won at an immense cost to the allies Americans.

Yes. Its only recently the USA finished up using their stockpile of purple heart medals (for those wounded/killed on active duty) that they had prepared for the invasion of Japan.

Although the Doomsday Clock says we are significantly closer to the end of the world right now than we were back then – it only reached 7 minutes to midnight during the Cuban Crisis and it’s at 90 seconds to midnight right now.

The Doomsday Clock is not based on any particularly objective criteria. I do agree that we face some big risks, but the Cuban missile crisis was a far more dangerous time than now as far as nuclear war was concerned. Putin huffs and puffs, but he's not actually insane. If he was going to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine, he would have done so by now. If he was going to take military action to prevent Finland joining NATO, he would have done so as soon as they applied. If he was going to attack NATO countries for supplying weapons to Ukraine, he would have done so by now. That's not to say we should be complacent, but the Cuban missile crisis was very, very close to a nuclear conflict.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2022/10/27/23426482/cuban-missile-crisis-basilica-arkhipov-nuclear-war

The reason they were used was because the U.S. wanted to end the war as quickly as possible.

This puts it better than I can:

As a Japanese tragedy, the atomic bombings tend to displace the many voices of other Asian peoples for whom the war was equally or even more tragic. Intentionally or not, remembrances of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have enabled a process of forgetting in postwar Japan about how and why the Japanese government initiated and conducted its wars in Asia. Despite the considerable efforts of Japanese citizens and scholars to tell a more balanced story over the last decade or so, the sense of victimization symbolized by the bombings remains powerful.12 This kind of forgetting may not be as intentional as, say, the writing of a textbook, but its consequences are equally profound. For Americans, remembrances of these events are similarly problematic. Like the Smithsonian exhibit, remembrances of the atomic bombings through textbooks and other media still tend to focus on the “fact” that the bombs were necessary to shorten the war and save countless American lives.13 In doing so, these writings ignore or “forget” that professional historians have disputed these claims for forty years, and from their research we know that the decision to use the bombs was complex and, especially after that fact, constantly contested.

from their research we know that the decision to use the bombs was complex and, especially after that fact, constantly contested.

Being a complex decision does not mean that the main priority of the U.S. was not to win the war as quickly as possible. The bombs were not used as a test to see how the different designs compared, they were used as a weapon to try and force Japan to capitulate.

Being a complex decision does not mean that the main priority of the U.S. was not to win the war as quickly as possible. The bombs were not used as a test to see how the different designs compared, they were used as a weapon to try and force Japan to capitulate.

What are you basing this on? Were you included in the decision making process in 1945? If not, then you know as much as any of the rest of us, and have probably read the same books as the rest of us.

Yes. Its only recently the USA finished up using their stockpile of purple heart medals (for those wounded/killed on active duty) that they had prepared for the invasion of Japan.

500,000 of them had been made.

and save untold American lives.

And the lives of people in countries that the Japanese had occupied and were murdering at a rate of thousands per week.

500,000 of them had been made.

So half a million Americans have been wounded/killed on active duty since the end of WWII?

The United States has been busy!

then you know as much as any of the rest of us, and have probably read the same books as the rest of us.

But he's right in saying that these weapons were used as a way to force the Japanese to surrender though.

The Japanese are estimated to have killed something between 3-10milion civilians in China (Chinese deaths alone are estimated to have been more than 6 million) , in Indonesia, Burma and other Pacific countries. They enslaved Koreans and Filipinos and worked them to death,  and all that excludes their treatment of allied POW.

Any examination of the use of these weapons has to be contextual

500,00 thousand were prepared in advance and nearly 450,000 were left at the end of the war, it's a costly business protecting our right to post shit on the internet ernie 🙂

I guess most of the American casualties protecting my right to post shit occurred in Vietnam?

Edit:

500,00 thousand were prepared in advance and nearly 450,000 were left at the end of the war

So WWII = 50,000?

That's less than Vietnam.

I'm not sure @avdave numbers are right.

I think over a million Purple Hearts were issued in WW2, and I think there were 500,000 left and the end (1.5 million were made) and they've only just finished issuing the surplus stock.

But he’s right in saying that these weapons were used as a way to force the Japanese to surrender though.

I don't disagree, but I'd argue, as many others have, that a test of the weapons was almost certainly a big part in the decision to use them. How much, I don't know - that's why I said that thols2 doesn't know either when they categorically stated that it wasn't a test. There have been 70 years of arguing about this.

So WWII = 50,000?

No, the Americans made vast numbers of them, allowing for 500,000 just for the invasion of Japan. Obviously they couldn't have been produced at once, the ramp up began some time before the bomb was dropped and the net result was that by the end of the war just under 450,000 were left.

I first heard of this at the end of last week listening to The Bomb a rather good podcast from the World Service. I've just got to the end of series one and I'd highly recommend it.

There have been 70 years of arguing about this.

Yes and the people who knew didnt say and I think are all dead now.
My guess would be it was a combination of several reasons.
To try and get the Japanese to surrender.
To "test" the weapons out.
To warn the USSR.
Possibly others as well.

I’d argue, as many others have, that a test of the weapons was almost certainly a big part in the decision to use them

Based on what? Can you cite any U.S. government records of the discussions about whether to use the bombs and where to drop them that show that testing them was a "big part" of the decision? What is your almost certainty based on?

Yes and the people who knew didnt say and I think are all dead now.
My guess would be it was a combination of several reasons.
To try and get the Japanese to surrender.
To “test” the weapons out.
To warn the USSR.
Possibly others as well.

Yeah, there's something in the back of my head as well...

Hiroshima bomb is dropped, Japan refuse to surrender.
A few days later Russia declares war on Japan.
A few days later Nagasaki bomb is dropped.
A few days later Japan surrenders.

Without googling - and I can't remember if that sequence is correct - isn't part of the argument along the lines of Japan were going to surrender once Russia got involved, so the US lobbed an unnecessary second bomb. And, even if they didn't surrender, US casualties wouldn't have been horrific because Russia. But hold on, Russia is involved so we'd better win this thing before they get their boots here...

To paraphrase the mess that's in my head. 😀

I’d argue, as many others have, that a test of the weapons was almost certainly a big part in the decision to use them

Based on what? Can you cite any U.S. government records of the discussions about whether to use the bombs and where to drop them that show that testing them was a “big part” of the decision? What is your almost certainty based on?

😀

Your certainty is catching.

Ernie – the point I was making was that chewkw was suggesting the Americans were in some way morally inferior by commenting on the fact that they dropped atomic bombs. I was pointing out that they’re all barbaric. I’d also add that we’re all victims of propaganda.

No, they are Not morally inferior but Equally Bad where victory is concerned.

Interesting discussion. As an aside, the US threatened and seriously considered using nuclear weapons during the Korean war too. At a stage in the war where they weren't doing too well with conventional weapons and strategy. This was at a time when the US had a huge nuclear advantage, China hadn't yet tested any nukes and Russian tests were at an early stage and not yet readily deployable. So the US could possibly have used them with limited if any nuclear reprisals. I think it was 'tactical' nukes against Korean/Chinese troop concentrations that were envisaged, not strategic bombing of cities, but still... Worrying that it was seriously considered.

isn’t part of the argument along the lines of Japan were going to surrender once Russia got involved, so the US lobbed an unnecessary second bomb.

No, the U.S. didn't know what Japan's response would be. They only had enough uranium and plutonium to make a few bombs, but Japan didn't know how much they had. Japan had nuclear physicists who could quickly analyze the fallout and reverse engineer how the nuclear reaction must have worked. They could figure out how much fissile material must have been needed and knew that producing it would have been extremely difficult. The U.S. wanted to demonstrate that they had multiple bombs and could use them regularly, rather than just being a one-off weapon that expended all the fissile material available. Dropping a second bomb a few days later showed that it was an operational weapon and Japan had to assume that the U.S. could incinerate the entire country.

The Japanese leadership was split. They knew that the war was going very badly, but the hard-line militarists still didn't want to surrender, even after the Nagasaki bombing and the Emperor's acceptance of surrender. The Emperor recorded his famous broadcast, "enduring the unendurable and suffering the insufferable." After the recording was made, but before it was broadcast, militarists raided the imperial palace, murdered a guard, and wanted to destroy the recording because they wanted to keep fighting. The U.S. was correct in being skeptical about Japanese willingness to surrender - the militarists wanted to all die in a glorious final battle to the death. The second bomb made it clear to the Emperor that the war was lost and at least he was realistic enough to call it quits right there and then.

 isn’t part of the argument along the lines of Japan were going to surrender

I think the US had intelligence traffic from various embassies around the world from the Japanse putting the feelers out about surrender terms, as early as late 1943 but the 4 conditions of surrender they suggested were thought as unacceptable and the State dept. was instructed to reject any proposal that included them. As @thols2 points out, there was an attempted military coup even after the Nagasaki bombing; Kyujo Incident. After Hiroshima the Japanese cabinet were split, Gen Korechi Anami for instance was convinced/had accepted  Japan couldn't win against the Allies but argued to continue to fight regardless. It's not at all clear that they would've surrendered without the atomic weapons drops.

So we create a thread especially to talk about the Cuban missile crisis having derailed another one, and we are straight into WW2....

But I've learnt a few things I didn't know, so always good

So we create a thread especially to talk about the Cuban missile crisis having derailed another one, and we are straight into WW2….

But I’ve learnt a few things I didn’t know, so always good

So, the Tories then. What a bunch of...

😀

So, the Tories then. What a bunch of…

Gotta be better than that Starmer though, eh comrade?

Interesting discussion. As an aside, the US threatened and seriously considered using nuclear weapons during the Korean war too

There was also some fairly serious discussion about nuking the USSR during the period that the USA had a reasonable arsenal and the Russians hadnt yet made any.

Putin huffs and puffs, but he’s not actually insane.

We can speculate as to whether his messianic, death-fearing impulses are insanity or merely arseholishness, but they come to the same thing. Even if he's an arsehole, he is at the centre of a system that is designed to insulate him from bad news.

Putin thought Ukraine could be flipped in 3 days. Does it matter whether insanity or poor information inputs are the cause of his mistake?

When I was a lad I got to know my next door neighbour, he was former soldier who'd been posted to Berlin when the crisis kicked off. He told me that the British soldiers expected that the entire British garrison would've been either overrun or obliterated within minutes. He claimed to have been able to see Soviet tanks massing on the other side of the wall, as could be seen from the mess.

Dr/MrsPJM's dad was in Germany in tanks at the time too.

I can't imagine how that must've felt to those - lads - who were NCOs, aged 21-25 at that time.

Does it matter whether insanity or poor information inputs are the cause of his mistake?

I would say yes when talking about whether he might launch a nuclear attack.
His inputs would need to be really, really bad to avoid any other conclusion than it will end badly for everyone.
Whereas if he is insane then who knows.

With regards to the 3 day claim. If you look back to the lead up to the war there were lots of western commentators pretty much agreeing with the worse case for him being it would turn into a vicious guerrilla war.
There were a lot of people who called it wrong.

What is your almost certainty based on?

Human nature.

The build such a weapon, but according to your 'Utter nonsense because' point of view, they didnt care about what the results were and would use that model to create more and more exactly the same.

I cant tell if you're naive, or plain argumentative.

As an aside, the US threatened and seriously considered using nuclear weapons during the Korean war too

Plus they had them set to be used should Russia invade Germany, in a WW3 scenario. They were prepared to bury them and set them off in the face of an invading army. Plus we know that nothing is off the table when push comes to shove.

His inputs would need to be really, really bad to avoid any other conclusion than it will end badly for everyone. Whereas if he is insane then who knows.

With regards to the 3 day claim. If you look back to the lead up to the war there were lots of western commentators pretty much agreeing 

1) Putin's inputs were really, really bad on the state of Ukrainian defence, and he was catastrophically wrong. He is increasingly isolated and sick.

2) A lot of "Western commentators" are just rent-a-mouths with a Twitter account, and there has always been surprising ignorance among them about Ukraine as it really is. Many of them don't even really know about Russia, let alone Ukraine. In contrast to the "commentators", Putin had access to a) the Russian military, which should have superior information about the state of the Russian war machine, and b) the Russian intelligence services, which should have superior info about the state of the Ukrainian military after 8 years of war.

And yet Putin was just as wrong as these idiots on Twitter.

An interesting article pointing to Putin's increasingly odd health-related behaviour published today: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/05/russian-defector-sheds-light-on-putin-paranoia-including-secret-train

They were prepared to bury them and set them off in the face of an invading army.

As were the British with Blue Peacock nuclear landmines aka the chicken bomb. There was a problem in winter where they would get to cold to detonate. One proposal was to put some chickens in since their heat would keep it warm enough.

Human nature.

The build such a weapon, but according to your ‘Utter nonsense because’ point of view, they didnt care about what the results were and would use that model to create more and more exactly the same.

I cant tell if you’re naive, or plain argumentative.

LOL. The atomic bomb was built as a weapon. It was tested in New Mexico to make sure that it worked as predicted. It was then dropped as an operational weapon to try to force Japan to surrender. That's all in the historical record.

LOL. The atomic bomb was built as a weapon. It was tested in New Mexico to make sure that it worked as predicted. It was then dropped as an operational weapon to try to force Japan to surrender. That’s all in the historical record.

They hadn't tested it in an actual combat situation, against actual people and infrastructure. Are you unable to see why that would be of interest to those who owned the weapon? Even the reactions of the aircrew who dropped would be useful for the future, never mind the way the bombs damaged the cities and the inhabitants, as opposed to the New Mexico desert.

Of course the bombs were used as a way to make Japan surrender - that's stating the bleeding obvious. The question, for 70 years, has been why the US thought they were necessary, having killed around 300,000 Japanese in fire-bomb raids over the previous few months, some of which were deadlier than the atomic bombings, and why, having dropped the first there was any need to drop the second.

A quote from Robert McNamara - later involved in the Cuban Missile Crisis: Curtis LeMay, in charge of the bombings, said “If we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals.” And I think he’s right. He, and I’d say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?

has been why the US thought they were necessary

Because it was increasingly clear that they (the Allies) had to do something as the Japanese were very much prepared to not only try to kill as many allied soldiers, enslaved Koreans and Filipinos and Chinese and Burmese civilians as they could (there are reports that in the weeks preceding the Hiroshima bomb that the Japanese had murdered at least 100,000 civilians), that they were also prepared/had every intention to allow the deaths of every Japanese civilian as well

The US considered dropping a bomb on an uninhabited island as a display of power but judged that that probably wouldn't have been sufficient pressure for them to surrender - Japanese cabinet officials (interviewed after the war) have confirmed that this would've likely been the outcome, as even after the Hiroshima bomb was dropped the Japanese cabinet decided unanimously that although they accepted victory was now out of the question, they should continue to fight.

 having dropped the first there was any need to drop the second.

See the Japanese decision to continue to fight after the Hiroshima bomb was dropped but also because they decided that in order to convince the Japanese that the weapon wasn't just a one-off created to trick them into surrendering, they should drop another soon after to show them that they had more weapons ready to go and were prepared to use them, and if that hadn't persuaded the Japanese, further bombs were planed in the coming weeks.

Even the reactions of the aircrew who dropped would be useful for the future

On the Enola Gay none of the flight crew (apart from Col Tibbets and I think the weapons expert on board) had any idea as what exactly the bomb was and what it could do. They were simply issued very strongly shaded googles and told not to look directly at the blast. They mostly just said "Oh my God" reported Tibbets in his after-mission debrief

Because it was increasingly clear that they (the Allies) had to do something as the Japanese were very much prepared to not only try to kill as many allied soldiers, enslaved Koreans and Filipinos and Chinese and Burmese civilians as they could (there are reports that in the weeks preceding the Hiroshima bomb that the Japanese had murdered at least 100,000 civilians), that they were also prepared/had every intention to allow the deaths of every Japanese civilian as well

This is post-fact justification by a side that won the war but knew they had done something terrible, with a huge lump of 20th century Western racism thrown in. (The US weren't interested in who the Japanese were killing in China before Pearl Harbor but became defenders of everyone post-PH?)

You said something earlier about context being important - quite patronisingly, I thought, considering that most people contributing have an idea of why context is necessary - but you are only looking at it in the context of the western combatants. The bit you, and thols2, are deliberately missing, is that the Russians were coming and grabbing land as they came. The bombs weren't just weapons, they were statements.

Btw, I have no need to defend the acts of the Japanese, my great-Uncle was on the Burma railroad. What I'm arguing against is the quite old fashioned view of this that you are both suggesting.

but you are only looking at it in the context of the western combatants.

there are reports that in the weeks preceding the Hiroshima bomb that the Japanese had murdered at least 100,000 civilians

the Russians were coming

The US had made very real plans to invade mainland Japan. The Russians didn't have anything like the capability to do the same. The Invasion plan for Kyushu was called Operation Olympic and was planned for Oct/Nov 1945 and Operation Coronet (planned for Mar '46) was the subsequent invasion of Honshu, the US military had planned for casualty rates of 35%. The Japanese defence plan was called Ketso-Go (Operation Decisive) and planned for the deaths of at least 3 million Japanese. As has been pointed out there was an attempted coup by the Japanese military so that they could go on fighting after the bomb drop over Nagasaki.

I don't think that anyone with any knowledge of the weapons at the time didn't think that was going to be terrible. They just realised that other than this, their only other way to end the war was going to be at least another years worth of fighting and millions of deaths.

The bombs weren’t just weapons, they were statements

In February 1945 the Germans tested a "dirty" bomb in Thuringia killing several hundred concentration camp victims in the process. These weapons were coming. This conflict went from biplanes to jets, The US in particular went from having an Army smaller than Portugal's in 1940 to the worlds first superpower in 1945 everything about it (the war) was a political statement.

(The US weren’t interested in who the Japanese were killing in China before Pearl Harbor but became defenders of everyone post-PH?)

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because the U.S. imposed an economic embargo in response to Japan's invasion of China. The U.S. ended up in the war because they demanded that Japan stop killing Chinese. You could try reading some basic history and you'd learn some stuff.