Well-poisoning is exactly the point, right up there with the flat-earth feds. The goal is only partly to make people who are already consuming non-mainstream content to question their own beliefs: it's also to drive away casual interest. People looking at an account or a message board full of people saying obvious truths like "America first doesn't have to mean Israel first," might be interested enough to stick around and start thinking about these things more deeply, right up until the next thing they see is "Nukes are bullshit" or "The Earth is totally flat guis." That's an immediate turn-off for normies. They won't let themselves be anywhere near it.
The more terminally online our society gets, the more reality looks and feels like a simulation. Especially with the Powers that Be on the internet increasingly curating reality to conform to their narrative by amplifying lies and memory-holing the truth. I'm starting to think the Matrix is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Where would you even draw the line? Is nuclear power fake? That's a lot of nuke plants that are... coal plants in disguise? Are the historical nuclear accidents fake? All nuclear radiation, some of which you can verify in your own home? How about all the nuclear missile silos built over the years, some of which are available for private purchase on real estate sites right now?
I have personally been inside a room built of old battleship steel housing a nuclear counter to get maximum accuracy, because more recent steel is contaminated by all the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons.
The conspiracy necessary for nukes to not be real would encompass an enormous number of people from around the world, many of which would be highly incentivized to blow the whistle if it were a hoax. Not to mention that a decent amount of it has been independently verified in the lab by a significant percentage of college physics students for decades. "Nukes aren't real" is on the level of "Spain doesn't exist" for the sheer level of conspiracy necessary for it to be true.
I honestly think this is a fed-driven psyop, just not in the way you'd think.
Maybe it's just me, but has anyone else seen a common thread on twitter and forums and 4chan? The idea that nuclear war isn't really that bad, that it's manageable, survivable even. Something that can be controlled. We don't need to worry about going to war with people whom have nukes, we can counter them easily. Or said nukes are so old that they may not even work, how about that?
Perhaps I'm just schizo-posting, but I think there's a massive effort in some fed think-tanks to drive the idea that war against nuclear powers is either permissible and/or good. That they're so driven for another goddamn war that they've starting to press against the idea of nukes being a civilization/planet ender that the left have been rubbing themselves raw over for the past several decades.
Limited nuclear war was the defacto outlook for the entire Cold War. Russia thought it's "tactical nukes" could be used on European & NATO forces without drawing the ICBM arsenals of UK, France & USA. So they planned on using them, along with chemicals too.
The two Japanese cities were rebuilt just as easily as the rest which were destroyed with ordinary bombs of firebombs. They were really small nukes of course.
MAD is based on the USA and USSR lobbing ALL their ICBMs all at once. "Use em or lose em" was the way it was back then. It would have been ugly losing hundreds of cities all at once, the entire world would feel it.
Irony Alert! Peaceniks protested the cruise missile back in the day, claiming it would make war even more dangerous. In fact it is a "second strike" weapon, like ICBMs on submarines: it would easily survive the lobbing of all the ICBMs and be ready for a "second strike" at whatever the first wave missed. That made MAD even better! Preventing war because each side knew it couldn't win with a surprise attack.
I started noticing that at the start of Russian-Ukraine war. Go on, attack Russia, because all they can threaten us with is ""nukes"" and nukes aren't real.
It’s one the most retarded things ever. If nukes didn’t exist, we would have had at least one major war between supposed nuclear powers. India-Pakistan would have fought an actual war, USA-USSR might have fought, North Korea would have been taken over.
Edit: since this apparently needs to be said, none of the following is my opinion. I'm summarizing the argument I've seen elsewhere.
Point one. Nuclear weapons were supposedly invented by several jews, a people who have perpetuated many hoaxes in service to their own interests over the centuries. Einstein was almost certainly a prolific plagiarist for example.
Point two, they were only ever deployed in war twice, and any witnesses to this are dead.
Point three, if you attempt for yourself to work out the science behind this in say, college, you get a visit from the same agency that visits the families of people killed by blacks.
Point four, Kennedy was assassinated more or less immediately after promising to reveal an astonishing secret that had been kept from the American people.
Point five, the nation of South Africa was urgently overthrown by a US backed color revolution after supposedly working out an independent nuclear weapons program for themselves.
Point six, damn near everything about the history of the first half of the twentieth century that is commonly considered a fact, is a filthy lie.
Now, several of these things can be explained by a combination of coincidences and a fully reasonable desire for the non proliferation of such a deadly weapon. The same things could also be plausibly explained as a long standing conspiracy to maintain the post WW2, UN controlled hegemony using the might of the United States as the enforcement arm. An enforcement arm that would be possible to challenge if the premise of an invincible weapon turned out to be a lie.
But at the core, whether you believe it or not boils down to the fact that you are choosing to believe something about commonly taught history of WW2. This is becoming increasingly unpalatable to many, for a variety of reasons.
Have you considered that saying nukes are fake is a way to further legitimize the holohoax? Why question that narrative when we can just push the narrative off the deep end and say nukes are fake and WW2 never happened.
Its like you and I inspecting something on the ground and some weird guy with a large nose dumps a pile of dirt on it.
Going from nukes are a hoax to WW2 never happened is quite the significant leap. That's like saying if you drink a beer you're gonna start smoking meth. Nukes are pretty irrelevant for the WW2 narrative. They're relevant for the post-war order.
Point two, they were only ever deployed in war twice, and any witnesses to this are dead.
We have pretty strong testimony from the people on the ground that were affected.......... unless they made that stuff up along with the photos of gigantic mushroom clouds
More to the point, legitimately denying that nuclear weapons exist involves denying that nuclear energy exists and that the millions of people who work in that industry are all conspiring liars. Nuclear fission powers both through almost exactly the same process. It makes no sense to assert that human beings were able to develop and exploit a source of energy that powerful but never weaponized it.
they were only ever deployed in war twice, and any witnesses to this are dead.
So the 2000 or so nuclear tests were... also fake? All those Bombs, over the decades, by all those nations (including hostile ones) all to help "the Jews"?
You believe this?
Do you think there's "a possibility" of this being true?
Keeping in mind normies shy away from anything "unpopular" (i.e. not fitting the bruteforced manufactured consensus narrative) because they're horrified of being judged "weird" and "creepy" for thinking for themselves.
While this is something that bad actors could throw out to disrupt discussion, it's also something that schizos genuinely believe and recent talks of nukes in the news would cause those thoughts to bubble up to the surface. I remember Owen Benjamin getting into nukes aren't real on a live stream when he was having his psychotic break.
Only a "special" person would think Iran bought thousands of $$$ centrifuges, built $$$ massive deep bunkers AND told the world they were enriching uranium to $$$ weapons grade (confirmed by the IAEA before Iran kicked them all out, they were well on the way) which has no civilian use at all... and NOT be making nukes.
They've also built $$$ ballistic missiles, bought (or tried to) various components to make atomic warheads & so forth.
They spent hundreds of millions, if not billions, to make ALL the pieces of a nuclear weapon, but they aren't actually doing it. Because: Orange Man Bad! 🤡
So what? Japan did the exact same thing. They researched the bomb and all the pieces, and made and set aside the raw materials required. And then sat on it all, never building or testing even one bomb, because they don't like, want, or need nukes. But in the event of a war, they could put those pieces together and start producing bombs in a week, just in case. I can't fault Iran for taking that same exact path, in fact I'd think they were dumb if they hadn't.
They never had the required mass of enriched uranium. Japan has very low BGR and very little radioactive materials.
They DID have a nuclear program, and post-war analysis says it was a solid design, it may have worked.
They are thought to have made a single test, but it didn't "go boom" and just left an area with some high BGR in Korea (or China, I forget).
Q: If they'd made a working A-Bomb (or 2), do you doubt Germany or Japan would not have used it? Moscow & London, Pearl Harbor and LA? Even in early '45 that would have changed everything.
So why wouldn't Iran do what it has sworn to do for 50 years now?
I've also seen this subject a few times over the years. I don't find it an entirely unreasonable position to arrive at, given how Fake & Gay the rest of the world is.
The number of people that have personally witnessed a nuclear weapon be used is vanishingly small, and pictures and videos could be completely faked. I have never seen one go off myself, so I couldn't tell the difference between the real thing and a fabrication. It's an event that is going to completely disappear from living memory before long and be nothing more than a story.
Nuclear weapons exist in the form of a "World-Ending Weapon," and their possession is used as a threat and bludgeon to compel diplomacy on a global scale. They are the Ultimate Bad Thing that could happen if The Big Countries don't get their way. Russia, Pakistan, China, North Korea, all these rivals to the West already say they have them, but I'm supposed to be terrified of someone else getting in on the action. The threat doesn't seem to line up with a standard we already have. I don't buy "but these guys are even worse/more dangerous." I heard that throughout Bush/Obama. I'm not convinced anymore.
Nukes are supposed to be horrifically devastating to the environment, but Nagasaki and Hiroshima are not wastelands, and neither is the surrounding countryside. Both of those bombs were extremely early in weapon deployment, so they were not likely to be designed to be very "clean," nor the longterm effects of their radiation fallout studied. The biggest thing I always hear about Nukes has two examples that don't meet that criteria, right in the open. Chernobyl and Fukushima were power plants, not nuclear weapons, so their environmental effects are not related to weapon deployment.
Not part of my list, but I don't find the argument for the existence of Nukes as weapons related to nuclear power plants existing. I don't understand why one requires the other. Their function is so completely separate I don't see the similarities. I don't know why radiation causing water to boil to spin a generator is comparable to an unfathomable explosion that levels cities. The Elephant's Foot is just sitting there menacingly, not continuously detonating. I suppose I simply lack the nuclear physics knowledge necessary to understand why a power plant means a bomb exists, specifically at the scale that a nuke is supposed to represent.
3 - The WW2 bombs were very small: 0.015 and 0.021 megatons respectively. They did good damage in WW2 standards, but are tiny by today's measure. That's why the radiation was minimal, along with the air burst.
People still got radiation sickness in the first few years though & most died since the Japanese government covered it up & refused proper treatment.
Modern US A-bombs range from roughly 0.5 megatons to 1.2 on the Minuteman.
Russian ICBM bombs are estimated to be between 2 and 5 megatons, but IDK if that's ever been confirmed, even after the fall of the USSR.
I have no idea how big China's bombs are, but they've added well over 120 missiles to their arsenal recently :/
Well-poisoning is exactly the point, right up there with the flat-earth feds. The goal is only partly to make people who are already consuming non-mainstream content to question their own beliefs: it's also to drive away casual interest. People looking at an account or a message board full of people saying obvious truths like "America first doesn't have to mean Israel first," might be interested enough to stick around and start thinking about these things more deeply, right up until the next thing they see is "Nukes are bullshit" or "The Earth is totally flat guis." That's an immediate turn-off for normies. They won't let themselves be anywhere near it.
Kookifier shills is what I've seen them called.
Wait, these people are claiming nuclear weapons are fake? Not just Iran making them?
There's been over 2000 set off over the past 80 years... hard to fake that many, globally, in what 11 nations? 🤔
The more terminally online our society gets, the more reality looks and feels like a simulation. Especially with the Powers that Be on the internet increasingly curating reality to conform to their narrative by amplifying lies and memory-holing the truth. I'm starting to think the Matrix is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Where would you even draw the line? Is nuclear power fake? That's a lot of nuke plants that are... coal plants in disguise? Are the historical nuclear accidents fake? All nuclear radiation, some of which you can verify in your own home? How about all the nuclear missile silos built over the years, some of which are available for private purchase on real estate sites right now?
I have personally been inside a room built of old battleship steel housing a nuclear counter to get maximum accuracy, because more recent steel is contaminated by all the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons.
The conspiracy necessary for nukes to not be real would encompass an enormous number of people from around the world, many of which would be highly incentivized to blow the whistle if it were a hoax. Not to mention that a decent amount of it has been independently verified in the lab by a significant percentage of college physics students for decades. "Nukes aren't real" is on the level of "Spain doesn't exist" for the sheer level of conspiracy necessary for it to be true.
Spain exists! It's where Spanish people came from 😸
Delaware on the other hand... does not!
I honestly think this is a fed-driven psyop, just not in the way you'd think.
Maybe it's just me, but has anyone else seen a common thread on twitter and forums and 4chan? The idea that nuclear war isn't really that bad, that it's manageable, survivable even. Something that can be controlled. We don't need to worry about going to war with people whom have nukes, we can counter them easily. Or said nukes are so old that they may not even work, how about that?
Perhaps I'm just schizo-posting, but I think there's a massive effort in some fed think-tanks to drive the idea that war against nuclear powers is either permissible and/or good. That they're so driven for another goddamn war that they've starting to press against the idea of nukes being a civilization/planet ender that the left have been rubbing themselves raw over for the past several decades.
This is just another step in that direction.
Or I could be utterly delusional. Who knows?
Limited nuclear war was the defacto outlook for the entire Cold War. Russia thought it's "tactical nukes" could be used on European & NATO forces without drawing the ICBM arsenals of UK, France & USA. So they planned on using them, along with chemicals too.
The two Japanese cities were rebuilt just as easily as the rest which were destroyed with ordinary bombs of firebombs. They were really small nukes of course.
MAD is based on the USA and USSR lobbing ALL their ICBMs all at once. "Use em or lose em" was the way it was back then. It would have been ugly losing hundreds of cities all at once, the entire world would feel it.
Irony Alert! Peaceniks protested the cruise missile back in the day, claiming it would make war even more dangerous. In fact it is a "second strike" weapon, like ICBMs on submarines: it would easily survive the lobbing of all the ICBMs and be ready for a "second strike" at whatever the first wave missed. That made MAD even better! Preventing war because each side knew it couldn't win with a surprise attack.
(Shrug)
What do you expect when you shut down half the country's TRIGAs and shift the money to teaching kids that women can be men.
Man on the moon to man in the ladies room. Fuck this timeline.
I started noticing that at the start of Russian-Ukraine war. Go on, attack Russia, because all they can threaten us with is ""nukes"" and nukes aren't real.
It’s one the most retarded things ever. If nukes didn’t exist, we would have had at least one major war between supposed nuclear powers. India-Pakistan would have fought an actual war, USA-USSR might have fought, North Korea would have been taken over.
Edit: since this apparently needs to be said, none of the following is my opinion. I'm summarizing the argument I've seen elsewhere.
Point one. Nuclear weapons were supposedly invented by several jews, a people who have perpetuated many hoaxes in service to their own interests over the centuries. Einstein was almost certainly a prolific plagiarist for example.
Point two, they were only ever deployed in war twice, and any witnesses to this are dead.
Point three, if you attempt for yourself to work out the science behind this in say, college, you get a visit from the same agency that visits the families of people killed by blacks.
Point four, Kennedy was assassinated more or less immediately after promising to reveal an astonishing secret that had been kept from the American people.
Point five, the nation of South Africa was urgently overthrown by a US backed color revolution after supposedly working out an independent nuclear weapons program for themselves.
Point six, damn near everything about the history of the first half of the twentieth century that is commonly considered a fact, is a filthy lie.
Now, several of these things can be explained by a combination of coincidences and a fully reasonable desire for the non proliferation of such a deadly weapon. The same things could also be plausibly explained as a long standing conspiracy to maintain the post WW2, UN controlled hegemony using the might of the United States as the enforcement arm. An enforcement arm that would be possible to challenge if the premise of an invincible weapon turned out to be a lie.
But at the core, whether you believe it or not boils down to the fact that you are choosing to believe something about commonly taught history of WW2. This is becoming increasingly unpalatable to many, for a variety of reasons.
Have you considered that saying nukes are fake is a way to further legitimize the holohoax? Why question that narrative when we can just push the narrative off the deep end and say nukes are fake and WW2 never happened.
Its like you and I inspecting something on the ground and some weird guy with a large nose dumps a pile of dirt on it.
Going from nukes are a hoax to WW2 never happened is quite the significant leap. That's like saying if you drink a beer you're gonna start smoking meth. Nukes are pretty irrelevant for the WW2 narrative. They're relevant for the post-war order.
I don't especially think so.
I think questioning any significant portion of the narrative of early twentieth century history lends itself to asking further questions.
We have pretty strong testimony from the people on the ground that were affected.......... unless they made that stuff up along with the photos of gigantic mushroom clouds
More to the point, legitimately denying that nuclear weapons exist involves denying that nuclear energy exists and that the millions of people who work in that industry are all conspiring liars. Nuclear fission powers both through almost exactly the same process. It makes no sense to assert that human beings were able to develop and exploit a source of energy that powerful but never weaponized it.
While we're at it, maybe oil doesn't exist and it's a massive Semitic scam to maintain control over the US
So Russia and every other country having nukes is also a conspiracy by muh jews?
Interesting...
Not what I said.
What I did was elaborate the respective positions as I'm aware of them. I took no side, nor do I even especially have a position on it.
So the 2000 or so nuclear tests were... also fake? All those Bombs, over the decades, by all those nations (including hostile ones) all to help "the Jews"?
You believe this?
Do you think there's "a possibility" of this being true?
Did I say I believed this?
As I said to the other guy, I just wanted to put out the points I've seen from the people who were saying it.
Well thanks for that. It is just as stupid as I'd imagined it would be. The leftists never fail to fail, eh?
Its Q psyop stuff designed to lead the simple minded like a pied piper and poison the well for onlookers who may be questioning the matrix.
Biden isnt a puppet... Hes a hologram!
The the globalists dont have bases under the ice in Antarctica..its behind the Ice Wall!
AIPAC and Israel have infiltrated the gov...THE EARTH IS FLAt!
Keeping in mind normies shy away from anything "unpopular" (i.e. not fitting the bruteforced manufactured consensus narrative) because they're horrified of being judged "weird" and "creepy" for thinking for themselves.
I've seen that floated around for at least the last 5 years.
While this is something that bad actors could throw out to disrupt discussion, it's also something that schizos genuinely believe and recent talks of nukes in the news would cause those thoughts to bubble up to the surface. I remember Owen Benjamin getting into nukes aren't real on a live stream when he was having his psychotic break.
Nukes are real.
Now, nukes are overblown in danger due to Leftist Pro-Soviet propaganda in the West, but they are real.
Only a "special" person would think Iran bought thousands of $$$ centrifuges, built $$$ massive deep bunkers AND told the world they were enriching uranium to $$$ weapons grade (confirmed by the IAEA before Iran kicked them all out, they were well on the way) which has no civilian use at all... and NOT be making nukes.
They've also built $$$ ballistic missiles, bought (or tried to) various components to make atomic warheads & so forth.
They spent hundreds of millions, if not billions, to make ALL the pieces of a nuclear weapon, but they aren't actually doing it. Because: Orange Man Bad! 🤡
Idiocy.
So what? Japan did the exact same thing. They researched the bomb and all the pieces, and made and set aside the raw materials required. And then sat on it all, never building or testing even one bomb, because they don't like, want, or need nukes. But in the event of a war, they could put those pieces together and start producing bombs in a week, just in case. I can't fault Iran for taking that same exact path, in fact I'd think they were dumb if they hadn't.
They never had the required mass of enriched uranium. Japan has very low BGR and very little radioactive materials.
They DID have a nuclear program, and post-war analysis says it was a solid design, it may have worked.
They are thought to have made a single test, but it didn't "go boom" and just left an area with some high BGR in Korea (or China, I forget).
Q: If they'd made a working A-Bomb (or 2), do you doubt Germany or Japan would not have used it? Moscow & London, Pearl Harbor and LA? Even in early '45 that would have changed everything.
So why wouldn't Iran do what it has sworn to do for 50 years now?
I've also seen this subject a few times over the years. I don't find it an entirely unreasonable position to arrive at, given how Fake & Gay the rest of the world is.
Not part of my list, but I don't find the argument for the existence of Nukes as weapons related to nuclear power plants existing. I don't understand why one requires the other. Their function is so completely separate I don't see the similarities. I don't know why radiation causing water to boil to spin a generator is comparable to an unfathomable explosion that levels cities. The Elephant's Foot is just sitting there menacingly, not continuously detonating. I suppose I simply lack the nuclear physics knowledge necessary to understand why a power plant means a bomb exists, specifically at the scale that a nuke is supposed to represent.
3 - The WW2 bombs were very small: 0.015 and 0.021 megatons respectively. They did good damage in WW2 standards, but are tiny by today's measure. That's why the radiation was minimal, along with the air burst.
People still got radiation sickness in the first few years though & most died since the Japanese government covered it up & refused proper treatment.
Modern US A-bombs range from roughly 0.5 megatons to 1.2 on the Minuteman.
Russian ICBM bombs are estimated to be between 2 and 5 megatons, but IDK if that's ever been confirmed, even after the fall of the USSR.
I have no idea how big China's bombs are, but they've added well over 120 missiles to their arsenal recently :/