From an official US atomic historian, a survey of the breadth of opinion on the use of the atomic weapons, from just after until more recently: https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/08/the-decision-to-u...
There are many entries there on many aspects of atomic weapons and a wealth of declassified contemporary material.
As you can see you're largely repeating one position of a broad field as if it were gospel and there were no other positions and no evolution of the debate.
Many of your points are those that came into being after the use of the bomb, back fitted proto Cold War era justifications.
There was relatively little thought put into using the weapons at the time other than a sense of urgency to field test two distinct designs resulting from the most expensive weapons development program in histrory that didn't produce anything useful until after the Germans surrended.
Hiroshimo & Nagasaki were to be bombed regardless, they were way down the punch list and followed on from 72 other Japanese cities destroyed via firebombing and conventional high explosives.
They were selected not for their importance (they were much further down the last than mid 70's) but because they were relatively untouched and made for good test sites for "just the atomic bomb damage".
There is no "arguing further on this topic", that was my only contribution, and I reiterate it.
Circle back to the original material and the historic commentary on that material, it's not clear whether you have read any of it let alone grasped the breadth of it.
The Battle of Okinawa alone had nearly 200,000 military casualties and another 150,000 civilian deaths.[1]
People asserting dropping of the bombs was wrong in any way are divorced from reality. Their position is devoid of all facts.
To be blunt. Dropping of the atomic bombs was not just the right decision, it was the most humane decision.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa#:~:text=Th....