Anyone else think nuclear weapons are a hoax...

Anyone else think nuclear weapons are a hoax? Or are at least suspicious that a post-nuclear war world wouldn't actually be post apocalyptic?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY
youtube.com/watch?v=5gD_TL1BqFg
rt.com/news/347313-putin-us-missile-defense-nuclear/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Who payed you?

oh my god, you are so fucking retarded. This is why Sup Forums got it's reputation of tinfoil virgin neckbeards, because of autistic dumbasses like you.

consider suicide

If you want to be pedantic about it, no one really knows what would happen in the event of a global nuclear war because it simply hasn't happened yet. Nuclear winter has only ever been a theory.

Many scientists do agree that a small scale nuclear war wouldn't be catastrophic. That's been the United States government position for decades after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, anyway. The most intense radiation will dissipate in a matter of days or weeks, depending on what the weapon is made of, and even thin materials such as newspapers can shield you from the immediate rush of radiation by absorbing it.

If anything, the official position has been that these weapons are extremely dangerous but won't necessarily lead to extinction.

Actually think about it. Whats the one reason America can't fuck off and be isolationist? Whats the biggest invention in human history? What's the one thing that has completely changed warfare and diplomacy more then anything else in human history?

The nuclear bomb. A literal doomsday machine. Or at least thats how the kikes would like you to believe it. Doesn't it seem a bit strange that WW2 ends so dramatically as if it were some kind of sci-fi story with 2 of the most powerful weapons ever invented? Oh but wait we goyim can't use these weapons ever again because "nuclear winter" and then we'd be bad goyim?

The kikes have forced a narrative that "nuclear weapons can literally blow up the world". If they're even real I see no reason to believe the ash from the burning cities (made of metal not wood anymore btw) dropping the temperature a couple degrees (lol they've even said it would cover the world) would actually affect my life that much.

I'm not suspicious about the lack of a nuclear holocaust or nuclear winter.

It's something that has been proven. It was pacifist scientist propaganda in order to make nukes stay in their silos with a worldwide MAD doctrine.

This is even If every nuke is used, but of course it will not be that way. Many will be destroyed in their silos in the opening strike, many subs will be sank before they launch a full second strike, and a very small minority of bomber forces will even get near the target, let alone be able to drop their payload.

I don't blame them, especially Sagan, for lying. Nukes are terrifying weapons that fuck people up horrifically in every way, especially if you survive.

What do you believe would be the affects of a fullscale nuclear war between US and Russia?

Would there be any major impact if we all just decided to bomb the shit out of the middle east with them and extinguish any life in the region?

America's lack of isolationism is the result of a piss-poor foreign policy that argued we need to be "proactive" in order to maintain our security. That means shitting all over what the Founding Fathers wanted in order to inject our country into everything overseas, whether it's building pointless military bases that just set the locals against us or endangering our national security by shaking hands with bad people.

They're not a hoax, but the post-apocalyptic stuff is fiction.

Most people don't realize just how many times the planet's been nuked. They think of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but don't consider the countless nuclear tests.

youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY

There a bunch of fucking kikes. If we had a real nuclear war by now our current society wouldn't be nearly as decadent and feminized. If a generation does experience first hand a major war the males of the next become cucks.

Well, I'm not a scientist, but I'd definitely feel cautious about all the residual fallout that's floating in the air.

Do I believe that a nuclear winter would happen or that humanity would become extinct? Probably not. It seems very unlikely.

Would I predict that all the radioactive particles floating in the air would lead to certain species of animals dying off and a spike in birth defects among human infants? Yeah, I'd find that very likely. I wouldn't want that either.

>This is how stupid Americans are

In your quality post-apocalypse fiction it should always be clear that the real shit hitting mankind if the die off that results from a breakdown in services, transport, etc. I think Lucifer's Hammer did it right (asteroid, not nukes though). The big boom kills a lot, but it's the panic, chaos, and strife following and then the absurd level of technical specialization in the modern world that does almost everyone in.

But why though?

Why did we forfeit all of our isolationist policies after ww2 though? Why did we fully follow a containment strategy that was supported by most American throughout the 2nd half of the 20th century?

Whats the one actual real threat to our security? What was the reason given for invading Iraq? What is the reason being given for Iran? And don't say jihadi terrorism is a real threat. If it actually was a threat to the system the kikes up top would've invaded Saudi Arabia.

>protip answer to all the answers is nuclear weapons

Go to Chernobyl and see how fast you get every type of fucking cancer.

Then look at the people who still live around there and tell me if they look even remotely human.

Now imagine hundreds of bombs carrying poison like that going off.

Even if a "nuclear winter" isn't real, the effects of heavy doses of radiation and the longevity of it is already well known. Dont be a fucking retard.

We'd need to dig around, but I'm pretty sure the nuclear winter scenario was an outright hoax.

I know everyone who was still alive at the end of the cold war who'd helped launch the theory pulled back massively.

Meme weapon

It's not really comparable. The difference in the amount of fissionable material, the concentrated form in Chernobyl vs the a detonated, dispersed mass of it.

And there's been a nice park at Ground Zero in Hiroshima since 1954. Not exactly the lingering finger of cancerous death.

This is what we should fear. If someone turns the keys it will be the Katrina style breakdown that gets most of us killed, not the fire-storms.

You'd need an extreme amount of nukes going off at once to cause serious climate change. All it is is ash rising into the upper atmosphere blocking out the light due to ash and smoke, and blocking out heat thanks to being deflected by heavily ionized particles.

If that smoke doesn't dissipate, local temperatures of wherever the bombs were dropped will decrease. Just like when a large volcano erupts. The smoke and ash will block out the sun and heat for days.

Yeah it wouldn't be that bad. I'm suspicious of it too.

The planet's main nuclear powers could launch everything that had at each other and places like Iceland would still not even notice that anything was wrong.

6 million per cent hoax

Heh. Been there, didn't mutate at all.

Exactly, I'm better than 50 miles from the nearest first strike target. 20 miles from a weak secondary target. We'd certainly survive the bombs dropping, but I don't know how long the food would last. I'm sure the rioting would last until the bullets ran out.

Mutually Assured Destruction will be bad enough.

It won't be a total collapse, but it will be months of roving mobs of niggers and might as well be niggers that murder rape and steal because that's their survival mechanism. Farms would still produce food, but they wouldn't have much fuel for tractors or fertilizer/pesticides and trucks wouldn't have fuel to move the food very far.

It it weren't for niggers, it would just be rebuilding with radiation no-go zones.

I don't think chaos would exist for that long. What would happen though is the US government would declare marshal law and probably get things back to normal in a decade or two. The real question would be if they'd ever give power ack to the people though and depending on whos in power I may be ok with an end to democracy. It was a shitty idea made up by a bunch of enlightenment fucks.

>Then look at the people who still live around there and tell me if they look even remotely human.

That's not fair though, Ukrainians would look like that without a Chernobyl.

>at least suspicious that a post-nuclear war world wouldn't actually be post apocalyptic?
it wouldnt, that is actually a big meme. no one has any idea what would actually happen and the whole nuclear winter apocalypse thing is the most extreme of extreme possibilities that no scientist actually thinks would happen. it was run with though for propaganda purposes

The news is routinely faked. Nukes are fear porn to control the masses. All of the evidence looks doctored. Like this obvious model here.

>Anyone else think nuclear weapons are a hoax?

You idiot, now imagine all those nukes detonated in heavily populated areas in the space of just a few hours.

Fuck off you retarded frogposter, real men are discussing important things here.

Also many nukes are targeted on the same target.

So 30 nukes on a single city isn't much worse than one nuke on the same city.

The quick math is 2.4 kilos of plutonium per megaton of yield in a exchange. Figure out where that evil shit is going to settle and bio-accumulate then be somewhere else.

I'm gonna repost what I told the other guy.

Actually think about it. Whats the one reason America can't fuck off and be isolationist? Whats the biggest invention in human history? What's the one thing that has completely changed warfare and diplomacy more then anything else in human history?
>The nuclear bomb. A literal doomsday machine. Or at least thats how the kikes would like you to believe it. Doesn't it seem a bit strange that WW2 ends so dramatically as if it were some kind of sci-fi story with 2 of the most powerful weapons ever invented? Oh but wait we goyim can't use these weapons ever again because "nuclear winter" and then we'd be bad goyim?
>The kikes have forced a narrative that "nuclear weapons can literally blow up the world". If they're even real I see no reason to believe the ash from the burning cities (made of metal not wood anymore btw) dropping the temperature a couple degrees (lol they've even said it would cover the world) would actually affect my life that much.

There's little to discuss. OP seriously suggested nuclear weapons could be a hoax, making him a quintuple retard. He then challenged the notion of nuclear winters, in which scientists are generally in agreement, even though that's irrelevant because nuclear weapons aren't used primarily because of the immediate and utter destruction they have. The foreign policy of the United States is little impacted by its nuclear arsenal, or in most instances, by any other's arsenal.

E X P L O S I O N

Some people believe that in the case of a nuclear exchange the world would turn into something simillar to the fallout games, but they are fucking retarded. The amount of radiation produced by an airburst is almost negligible (people live normally in hiroshima and nagasaki) and it would have effects locally if anything. If you were fucking retarded and decide to use a massive surface nuke in some kind of city then yes, there would be a huge zone affected by radiation, but nobody would do that because it would be stupid and the bomb would be less effective in terms of knocking down infrastructure, which is what would cause a collapse of civilization and not people turning into zombies because of radiation. If you knock out the supply of oil, food and energy, the world as we know it would fuck off in a matter of days.

You didn't make any connection whatsoever to the supposed destructive capability of nuclear weapons and the interventionist foreign policy of Americans.

But seriously, you didn't even try to backpedal from your extraordinarily idiotic first sentence.

>The foreign policy of the United States is little impacted by its nuclear arsenal, or in most instances, by any other's arsenal.

wut

Have to call bull-shit on that. If the Soviet Union was a no-nukes paradise, Cuba would be the 51st State. Best Korea? history, with a Iraq style liberation. Nukes prevent nations from some forms of risk and gambling. This may not be a bad thing.

ignore namefags

Yes, that'll cause nuclear winter and mass mutations, because it only counts if the bombs fall on people.

>This comment will trigger Nippon-kun

Because I'm someone that actually questions what I'm told rather then a mindless zombie like you that believes everything he's told.

As for our interventionist foreign policy let me repost again.


Why did we forfeit all of our isolationist policies after ww2 though? Why did we fully follow a containment strategy that was supported by most American throughout the 2nd half of the 20th century?

Whats the one actual real threat to our security? What was the reason given for invading Iraq? What is the reason being given for Iran? And don't say jihadi terrorism is a real threat. If it actually was a threat to the system the kikes up top would've invaded Saudi Arabia.

>protip answer to all the answers is nuclear weapons

...

>Why did we forfeit all of our isolationist policies after ww2
Schekel and the hope for more shekel by controling foreign countries with economic, cultural and military methods.

Prove me wrong. The exception is North Korea and very few instances of Russia, though I don't think any of the foreign relations that the US has had with Russia over the past several would have been significantly affected if Russia didn't have nuclear weapons.

I was not considering foreign policy during the cold war. Every current nuclear power is either the only superpower, a regional power with the only nukes, or peaceful like India, UK, Germany, etc.

thx czech bud

"nuclear winter" comes from all the soot from the massive firestorms that would engulf cities following a nuclear exchange, not from the detonations themselves. Even then, the models which predict an extinction level catastrophe are highly controversial and most likely grossly overstated.

Yeah nukes are bad, but it annoys the fuck out of me how people think the "Fallout" series is an accurate portrayal of a post-nuclear war world, minus the mutants.

Tested nukes were mainly detonated in the air to reduce fallout (the shit that causes nuclear winters). Fallout is what mainly causes irradiated material to spread far from the original point of detonation. So with barely any fallout combined with the fact that the thousands of nukes were detonated on average at a rate of once every few months.

Now take all those nukes, detonate them all within the space of a few hours and realise how much fallout has just been produced.

But good try :^)

I know that but how did he convince the people it was in their best interest to follow Mr. Shekel's advice? Keep in mind 1950's America was 90% white and fairly (though not fully) redpilled about jews.

>a mindless zombie like you that believes everything he's told.
What do I believe, exactly? That nuclear weapons exist? I didn't even confirm that I believed in nuclear winters.

>Why did we forfeit all of our isolationist policies after ww2 though?
We didn't have a isolationist policy before WW2, you idiot.

>protip answer to all the answers is nuclear weapons
You aren't making any connection. You're just saying nuclear weapons exist, therefore, the US felt the need to be interventiont. There isn't any logical connection here.

Are you all fucking autistic or something?
How much tinfoil can you get

WHAT WAS THE IRAQ WAR!

WHAT WAS THE COLD WAR YOU FUCKING IMBECILE!

What really confuses me that that 3/4 of people really didn't read his first sentence.

>WHAT WAS THE IRAQ WAR!
That was based on Iraq having WMDs, not the US. In any case, the most popular theory was they had chemical weapons, not nuclear weapons.

>WHAT WAS THE COLD WAR YOU FUCKING IMBECILE!
I already clarified that I was talking about modern times.

...

>We didn't have a isolationist policy before WW2, you idiot
I guess thats why we stayed out of ww2 until 1942. We weren't perfect but people at least still had an isolationist sentiment. After ww2 that completely evaporated. The reason? They felt their safety threatened by a foreign people with the ability to end their life in the blink of an eye.

>You aren't making any connection.
WTF are you talking about? The reason for all of those conflicts was nuclear weapons?

lol this thread

I'm sorry did you forget the part where Saddam Hussein allegedly attempted to buy yellow cake uranium and we were all worried he would develop nuclear weapons in a few years?

The cold war is modern times. Just because people haven't been that worried of a nuclear war between Russia and America for the last couple of decades doesn't mean it hasn't completely shaped our foreign policy for the last 70 years.

>this is a hoax
youtube.com/watch?v=5gD_TL1BqFg

Obviously CGI

>I guess thats why we stayed out of ww2 until 1942.
There was the Lend-Lease, assistance in the invasion of Iceland, World War 1, the Monroe Doctrine, the First and Second Barbary Wars, the gradual expansion of the US during the 19th century, the various interventions in Latin America by the U.S. government often justified under the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.

a lot of the bomb test films look clearly faked with models or other camera trickery

>I'm sorry did you forget the part where Saddam Hussein allegedly attempted to buy yellow cake uranium and we were all worried he would develop nuclear weapons in a few years?
That wasn't the basis of the Iraq War. Even if I allowed that it was a concern, American having the weapons at all wasn't a factor, as the much entire world would have been willing to stop Saddam if he was building WMD.

>The cold war is modern times.
Then we disagree what is considered modern times, but that's irrelevant. I wasn't talking about that period and I never said I was.

lol jk

Ur retarded m1

First of all Lend Lease went completely against what the American people wanted at the time. The vast majority wanted nothing to do with the conflict in Europe. After ww2 however you don't see a large isolationist sentiment again until after the cold war is over, all the way in the 90s.

The reason for this? The American people felt threatened by the power and destructive force the USSR could wield upon them through nuclear means.

And I guess you didn't read the 2nd half of my sentence so I'll repeat it. We didn't follow it perfect like most things but people generally held a somewhat isolationist sentiment. You'll notice after ww1 we never joined the League of Nations the Woodrow Wilson set up. We didn't join because the people still believed in isolationist policies and didn't want to make the US a part of an international organization.

You are very gravely mistaken about the nuclear weapons. While wmd's were the chief concern the reports about the definetly uranium weighed very heavily on Bush's head (if it was concocted by him) and definitely convinced a large nuumber of Americans going to war was the best option.

There's no way Bush could've drummed up enough support to go to war without mentioning nuclear weapons. He barely had enough even mentioning them.

Also even just talking about the last few years its not like people have been blind to nuclear weapons.

rt.com/news/347313-putin-us-missile-defense-nuclear/

>First of all Lend Lease went completely against what the American people wanted at the time.
Changing the goal posts, m8.

>After ww2 however you don't see a large isolationist sentiment again until after the cold war is over, all the way in the 90s.
I don't know of any evidence that this was influence my nuclear weapons as such. I think more important was not only that the US became a superpower, but an incredibly powerful identity that that diametrically opposed to American ideals had been established that explicitly was not isolationist. This explains the occupation of South Korea, increase of troops in Northern Italy, and the Berlin Airlift, which happened before the Soviets developed their their nuclear capability.

>The American people felt threatened by the power and destructive force the USSR could wield upon them through nuclear means.
The US was interventionist before this.

>held a somewhat isolationist sentiment.
This was lost because the USSR existed, not merely because of their nuclear capability.

>While wmd's were the chief concern the reports about the definetly uranium weighed very heavily on Bush's head (if it was concocted by him) and definitely convinced a large nuumber of Americans going to war was the best option.
Almost all the evidence presented was concerning the threat of chemical weapons. The response would have been little different if there was no evidence at all that Saddam was developing nuclear weapons, (even though the real evidence wasn't credible).

As for the last link, I think it said it rarely happens and when most people think of interventionism by the United States, this isn't it.

This has actually been a good debate and I'd love to keep going but I need to go to bed so this'll be my last response. You can respond to me and have the last laugh unlesss thread is still going somehow after I wake up.

>Changing the goal posts, m8.
Not really I'm just illustrating the defiance people felt to interventionism before the nuclear bomb was created.

>an incredibly powerful identity that that diametrically opposed to American ideals had been established
Exactly this power that represented everything that went against US values. An atheist nation, had the power to obliterate the US. Clear evidence can be seen that people were scared with all the money they spent on bomb shelters throughout the 50s. Also like I said before they followed the containment strategy because of how scared people were of having red's able to shoot nukes from countries right next door. Why do you think Russia putting nukes in Cuba nearly led to Nuclear War?

>This was lost because the USSR existed, not merely because of their nuclear capability
I agree with you on this point actually. Its not just that the Ruskies had nukes. Its that the Ruskies had nukes and they hated everything America stood for.

As for if we still wouldve gone to war had Bush nnever released the report that Sadam was trying to buy uranium, its speculation either way, so there's no way for either of us to know if we're right. So we'll call this one a draw.

My point is its not like there aren't still some nuclear tensions even now between the 2 largest nuclear powers America and Russia.

>Not really I'm just illustrating the defiance people felt to interventionism before the nuclear bomb was created.
You never mentioned people until now.

> Its that the Ruskies had nukes and they hated everything America stood for.
The West was already preparing to oppose the Soviets even before they developed the bomb. I already mentioned several instances of interventionism before that happened.

>My point is its not like there aren't still some nuclear tensions even now between the 2 largest nuclear powers America and Russia.
This makes up about 5% of the United States's "interventionism." The world would not be a significantly safer place, (i.e., not fewer happenings), if nuclear weapons ceased to exist.

Even if I allowed that the crux of the Cold War was two opposing power each individually having the ability to destroy all civilization, this isn't based on a hoax. The threat of nuclear winters isn't a significant concern in refraining from using nuclear weapons, at least not nearly as much as there existing a threat where it could be justified.

the vast majority of those nukes were very low-yield bombs though, almost always detonated in the air (to avoid fallout) or under the ground/water.

its the multi-megaton yield hydrogen bombs such as webm related that would bring about nuclear winter and the apocalypse. they throw thousands of tons of radiactivate shit into the air. just one of these babies on a city could contaminate a whole state.

it should be noted that these kinds of bombs no longer exist. the largest bombs today are like fifteen times smaller than this one.

Are you retarded? Have you never taken a physics course in your life?

>Believing the nuclear jew

"Yes that's it. Make them believe we have weapons of mass annihilation. More shekels for us>"

>nukes aren't real
stop