No, I'm telling you that that's what I personally have come to believe after seeing what evidence there is. I only linked the youtube video because it was a convenient source that summarized the evidence, it's not like I think that's the only source for this info. I was presenting it so that someone else who holds the belief that I used to, that the use of the bomb had a moral justification that could be argued for or against, might also come to understand that, no, actually, it was a heinous, indefensible act of unspeakable violence done for no reason by people who knew there was no reason for it when they did it.

You can believe whatever sources you want to. The two sides of the argument here are:

1.) "the popular narrative is true and there is an argument to be had about the use of the bomb"

and

2.) "the popular narrative is invented and, in fact, there was no justifiable reason for using the bomb."

You're still trying to argue as if we both believe #1, and fall on either side of that debate (it was justified on the grounds that it would prevent further harm vs. it was not, the justification given is not enough, even if it may have been what the people who used it thought when they used it). But that's not the argument here. I am saying that, based on my understanding of the history, much of which is summarized in the video I linked but has been corroborated by a number of other sources I've encountered in my life, that #2 is correct. There's no argument to be had about the use of the bombs. It doesn't matter if it wasn't so bad compared to the scale of the rest of the war, or that "other people did worse things, and really lots of people have killed lots of people in history and that's all very bad so what's really the big deal anyway, clearly they had good intentions, right?" No. I am saying they knew it was pointless and did it anyway and they deserve every hell conceivable for it.

I am also not saying that only my source is correct, I am saying that, if you believe my source is correct, then you must believe that there is no argument to be had about using the bombs. That is what I am not budging on.

Does that help? Does that clear up your misunderstanding? I do wholly understand why my disdain for a wikipedia source could be equally matched by your disdain for a youtube one, but the origin of the sources isn't really what's in contention here.