What's the point of nuclear weapon?

[eembach]

Ok, no need to be so agressive there amigo.

I'm asking out of curiosity from what you posted, not to call you a dumbass ct'er or to make fun of you.

Any sources on what you are claiming?

Sorry I come out guns blazing most the time when it comes to these kind of matters because I am almost always met with hostility when trying to spread the truth that is uncomfortable to hear.

I post a video above that details the Japanese surrender and a lot of the misconceptions.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160811120353.htm - heres a good summation of research done on survivors and their children

 

[Whippy McGee]

Ask the Japanese.

 

[eembach]

Ask the Japanese.

They will tell you that it was the horrific napalm firebombing that the US performed on many cities like Tokyo where they killed like 100,000 in a day. Not nukes, just using napalm to light an entire city on fire and burn up innocent civilians, the nukes didn't make a difference and there was no difference between firebombed cities and nuked cities, that's just myth, not fact.

Yea then tell me home they can tell the difference between steel made before WW II and after WW II.

One is called low background steel.

Why is that, you may ask.

Well lean?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-backg

Yea then tell me home they can tell the difference between steel made before WW II and after WW II.

One is called low background steel.

Why is that, you may ask.

Well lean?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel

This besides all the other way to prove nuclear weapons have been used.

As to why, simple. MAD prevents invasion. Why do you think no one has taken over Iseral.

Because .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

round_steel

This besides all the other way to prove nuclear weapons have been used.

As to why, simple. MAD prevents invasion. Why do you think no one has taken over Iseral.

Because .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

Low background steel is not direct proof of the existence of nuclear bombs. It is a nice red herring though, because the subject is complicated enough that false claims can be made.

There is no historical record of background radiation levels before the 1940s, so the claim radiation levels rose from nuclear tests is not easily determined. World wide background radiation levels continued to climb in the 1970s thru the 1980s when there were no significant tests being performed. As well as the fact that at the same time in the mid 20th century they shifted from the Bessemer process to the BOS process for steel manufacture and that also plays a part in the number of nucleotides in the steel and how much low background steel is being produced, primarily due to the constant recycling of steel any irradiated steel gets mixed with the old low background so they amount of low background steel fell over time. And just because steel is low background does not mean it was created prior to nuclear bomb tests, it can be made now if desired. There is not any evidence that I can find that indicates background radiation levels and traceable nucleotide levels are strongly determined by nuclear weapons tests and not just the product of fission reactors.

And Israel was a state created by the allies and UN post WWII and has the full support of the US to the tune of 30 billion or so a year, I think that strongly affects the desire to go to war with them...

sources: https://www.researchgate.net/public...rals_from_the_northern_hemisphere_Philippines
http://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2008/UNSCEAR_2008_Report_Vol.I.pdf
https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/fallout/feasibilitystudy/technical_vol_1_chapter_3.pdf (pg 62)

I think it was intelligent to use Nevada as the alleged test site for the nuclear bombs because the level of cosmic background radiation is highest there so measurements of radioactivity will look like they are centralized from Nevada and spread outwards, but that is conveniently the natural dispersion of background radiation regardless of nuclear bomb tests.

 

[oldshadow]

They will tell you that it was the horrific napalm firebombing that the US performed on many cities like Tokyo where they killed like 100,000 in a day. Not nukes, just using napalm to light an entire city on fire and burn up innocent civilians, the nukes didn't make a difference and there was no difference between firebombed cities and nuked cities, that's just myth, not fact.


Low background steel is not direct proof of the existence of nuclear bombs. It is a nice red herring though, because the subject is complicated enough that false claims can be made.

There is no historical record of background radiation levels before the 1940s, so the claim radiation levels rose from nuclear tests is not easily determined. World wide background radiation levels continued to climb in the 1970s thru the 1980s when there were no significant tests being performed. As well as the fact that at the same time in the mid 20th century they shifted from the Bessemer process to the BOS process for steel manufacture and that also plays a part in the number of nucleotides in the steel and how much low background steel is being produced, primarily due to the constant recycling of steel any irradiated steel gets mixed with the old low background so they amount of low background steel fell over time. And just because steel is low background does not mean it was created prior to nuclear bomb tests, it can be made now if desired. There is not any evidence that I can find that indicates background radiation levels and traceable nucleotide levels are strongly determined by nuclear weapons tests and not just the product of fission reactors.

And Israel was a state created by the allies and UN post WWII and has the full support of the US to the tune of 30 billion or so a year, I think that strongly affects the desire to go to war with them...

sources: https://www.researchgate.net/public...rals_from_the_northern_hemisphere_Philippines
http://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2008/UNSCEAR_2008_Report_Vol.I.pdf
https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/fallout/feasibilitystudy/technical_vol_1_chapter_3.pdf (pg 62)

I think it was intelligent to use Nevada as the alleged test site for the nuclear bombs because the level of cosmic background radiation is highest there so measurements of radioactivity will look like they are centralized from Nevada and spread outwards, but that is conveniently the natural dispersion of background radiation regardless of nuclear bomb tests.

So you actually believe this?

I have worked in the nuclear field for over 30 years and was an instructor with research in nuclear power and cross over weapons effects so I know you are wrong. Howerve I can see as with most CTers you will refuse to believe the facts. People like you always amuse me but such is the way of things. No sense in wasting time trying to convince you of anything. Same as flat earth people.

 

[eembach]

So you actually believe this?

I have worked in the nuclear field for over 30 years and was an instructor with research in nuclear power and cross over weapons effects so I know you are wrong. Howerve I can see as with most CTers you will refuse to believe the facts. People like you always amuse me but such is the way of things. No sense in wasting time trying to convince you of anything. Same as flat earth people.

I am just trying to read the research and come to a reasonable conclusion, you can call me what you want. Have you ever witnessed a nuclear explosion? You have worked with nuclear bombs? And what is a cross over weapons effect?

So you think Galen Winsor is wrong and a fraud? Like all the stuff he said was either lies or he was confused? I ask because he is an expert like yourself so it's hard for me to distinguish the truth from falsehoods without firsthand experience.

If you have the time I would really be interested to hear you take on him and his statements:


I am trying to shed the beliefs and find hard evidence and research, would appreciate any real discourse and your expert analysis.

 

[JbModest]

You have m


So they didn't call it the war to end all wars before the nukes? Seems to still be correct, nice try at a cherry pick though.

Nukes are fake.

And the Earth is flat.

 

[eembach]

And the Earth is flat.

Could be, dinosaur bones could be fake, fluoride could be bad for you, the CIA might be working with Hollywood, operation Northwoods might have been real, operation mockingbird might be real, MKULTRA might have happened, the presidential election might be rigged by own government, what you learn in school might be designed to brainwash you, you might have been convinced you aren't special and smart and have unlimited creative potential and deserved to be filled with love and joy, but I mean who's really keeping track of all the things, there are so many of them....

 

[hillelslovak87]

im sure lockheed has an experimental program to clean up the radiation from a blast so we can start using nukes again.

 

[Son of Jamin]

Also the Samson option.

 

[m52nickerson]

Any future global war will be a war without victory. There will be no winners, only losers. Even if you raze to the ground the most powerful military country in the world, fallout and all that crap will be enough to trigger nuclear winter.

Why keep those nuclear devices and pay shitload for maintenance where you can just spend this money elsewhere.

Just a thought.

You answered your own question. It means that you can't win a war against a nuclear armed country which means the only real option is not to go to war with them.

 

[eembach]

You answered your own question. It means that you can't win a war against a nuclear armed country which means the only real option is not to go to war with them.

So you are saying the US hasn't gone to war since WWII? I guess they weren't huge wars comparatively but the Korean War, Vietnam war, And wars in Iraq and Afghanistan come off as wars to me, and I'm not sure I'd count those as victories either....

 

[m52nickerson]

So you are saying the US hasn't gone to war since WWII? I guess they weren't huge wars comparatively but the Korean War, Vietnam war, And wars in Iraq and Afghanistan come off as wars to me, and I'm not sure I'd count those as victories either....

Yes the US went to war, but it did so against other countries that did not have nukes. The point is you are not going to see Russia or China declare war on the US.

 

[eembach]

Yes the US went to war, but it did so against other countries that did not have nukes. The point is you are not going to see Russia or China declare war on the US.

Okay so you can go to war against a nuclear armed country and beat them, only if you don't have nukes yourself? lol makes nukes seem kind of useless then... Or maybe the war is useless in the first place.

You honestly think that without nuclear bombs the USA, Russia, and China would be at war right now?

 

[Bloodworth]

First the war with Japan would have been 10x longer without the deterrent of a nuke.

Second wars today are not fought with traditional weapons.
Enemies think outside the box and use attacks like open borders, the funding of blm. Those are the weapons used today and they do more damage.

Once people start waking up to these new attacks. The world will be a better place

 

[m52nickerson]

Okay so you can go to war against a nuclear armed country and beat them, only if you don't have nukes yourself? lol makes nukes seem kind of useless then... Or maybe the war is useless in the first place.

You honestly think that without nuclear bombs the USA, Russia, and China would be at war right now?

Korea was not that long after WWII, the number of nuclear weapons was still really low. The Vietnam war was a proxy war with the US vs. Soviet Union backed North. Yes, the US pulled out when it was realized there was no way to win without pulling the Soviet Union into it fully and risking nuclear war. The other wars were not losses in terms of war, political losses sure.

Yes, without the Nuclear deterrent I think we would have seen another world war.

 

[oldshadow]

I am just trying to read the research and come to a reasonable conclusion, you can call me what you want. Have you ever witnessed a nuclear explosion? You have worked with nuclear bombs? And what is a cross over weapons effect?

So you think Galen Winsor is wrong and a fraud? Like all the stuff he said was either lies or he was confused? I ask because he is an expert like yourself so it's hard for me to distinguish the truth from falsehoods without firsthand experience.

If you have the time I would really be interested to hear you take on him and his statements:


I am trying to shed the beliefs and find hard evidence and research, would appreciate any real discourse and your expert analysis.

Here is a good start.

https://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testi...al-overview-of-theeffects-of-nuclear-testing/

 

[eembach]

Korea was not that long after WWII, the number of nuclear weapons was still really low. The Vietnam war was a proxy war with the US vs. Soviet Union backed North. Yes, the US pulled out when it was realized there was no way to win without pulling the Soviet Union into it fully and risking nuclear war. The other wars were not losses in terms of war, political losses sure.

Yes, without the Nuclear deterrent I think we would have seen another world war.

I think it is hard to make the hard distinction between a world without nuclear weapons and the one with them considering the rapid changes to the world through technological development and globalization post WWII, but I agree it does make for a believable story. I just don't happen to believe the story without some good proof, and I don't think the facts line up with the story.

Here is a good start.

https://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testi...al-overview-of-theeffects-of-nuclear-testing/

lame I thought you would actually have something to provide other than lame studies from a government organization, takes forever to sort through and find the study methodology which they usually don't even provide unless you want to get behind pay walls and stuff. Just making the issue more complicated and annoying.

You don't want to touch on Galen Winsor?

 

[oldshadow]

I think it is hard to make the hard distinction between a world without nuclear weapons and the one with them considering the rapid changes to the world through technological development and globalization post WWII, but I agree it does make for a believable story. I just don't happen to believe the story without some good proof, and I don't think the facts line up with the story.



lame I thought you would actually have something to provide other than lame studies from a government organization, takes forever to sort through and find the study methodology which they usually don't even provide unless you want to get behind pay walls and stuff. Just making the issue more complicated and annoying.

You don't want to touch on Galen Winsor?

There are plenty of studies out there but you like the flat earth people are going to dismiss them as all CT..

Galen Winsor was a wack job that talked stupid shit but any evidence I link you will dismiss as a government conspiracy.

There are reports and mountains of them on the biological effect of radiation exposure from the first test to Chernobyl.

But this is a waste of my time.

If you or anyone wants to prove Galen Winsor was right just go to a place like Lake Karachay and spend an hour sitting on the shore in the hot spot. That is 600 rem you would revive. Which is 100 percent fatal within 30 days. And a real shitty way to die.

 

[RockstarChris]

When Chuck Norris asks for a light.

 

[Philo-Publius]

Any future global war will be a war without victory. There will be no winners, only losers. Even if you raze to the ground the most powerful military country in the world, fallout and all that crap will be enough to trigger nuclear winter.

Why keep those nuclear devices and pay shitload for maintenance where you can just spend this money elsewhere.

Just a thought.

Tell Russia that. Let's see who gives up their nuclear weapons first.