Post #77 clearly stated (pre-judged?) that the bombings were indiscriminate. Has anything that's been presented since post #77 (along with post #65) changed that opinion? Also, I have no further material to offer; I'm satisfied with what's been presented.
There are two senses in which a city = target bombing can be called indiscriminate: (1) objectively, in that within the radius of its operation, the bomb kills everyone in a city, or a significant sector of a city; and (2) subjectively, in that the death of the civilians formed part of your intention.
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were objectively indiscriminate in sense #1. They killed large numbers of persons who were noncombatants --- far more than were combatants --- including, of course, infants and children, the sick and the elderly. It is certain that even if thousands of noncombatants had wanted to escape the city, they could not have done so. This makes the acts objectively wrong.
We are trying to determine to what extent, if any, #2 is also true. If it is true, then the bombings were also gravely morally objectionable.
This is where the "leaflet" evidence comes in. To what extent were they used? How many? Where? When? With what expected impact? This could be truly exculpatory, but I don't know very much about it.
I'm not the prosecutor here. I am, in my free, persistent, and responsibly American way, a judge. I hope we all are judges: studying the situation, hearing the testimony, struggling to make a right judgment.
BTW, as to Curtis LeMay (whom I brought up earlier): As far as I can see, LeMay at first objected to the atomic bombs because he was afraid they would be duds. He was afraid they would not cause the catastrophic devastation that was hoped for. After that was demonstrated with a satisfactory flambeau, he became an enthusiastic proponent of both building and using atomic weapons. Fortunately, he was subsequently unable to do so.