Will Waste From Nuclear Power Stations Be Used By Zelensky To Trigger A Nuclear Exchange

When I discovered that high level nuclear waste from my friendly neighbourhood 'electricity generating station' was being carefully prepared and stored in expensive cast iron casks, instead the much cheaper and safer method, (mixed with concrete into a block so heavy that only an extra-large truck can move it), I knew they wanted that waste for something. Either for some advanced generating system, or more likely for dirty bombs.

Now the suggestion has been made.

" . . . it may point to Ukraine having decided to use a dirty bomb, a crude artifact with nuclear waste that could cause radioactive contamination of large sections of territory, and be the catalyst of a worldwide nuclear exchange between the major powers.”
. . .
“We have the material; we have the knowledge. If the order is given, we will only need a few weeks to have the first bomb."

leohohmann.substack.com...

Yawn, popcorn.

a reply to: TimBurr

Ukraine uses dirty bomb = Goodbye Ukraine.

It is that simple. ☠️

a reply to: TimBurr

Ukraine will dig its own grave.

The apparent lack of reaction from the western partners tells me that Zelensky has already been dealt with in the background. I doubt that he will make such a statement again. The man has nothing to say at all, he is a bad comedian, not even a real actor and certainly not a politician with any stature.

Zelensky was elected into this conflict, that must be clear to everyone.

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: TimBurr

Ukraine uses dirty bomb = Goodbye Ukraine.

It is that simple. ☠️

Which is why the premise of this article is BS.

A nuclear explosive bomb is a horse of a different color, however. Ukraine makes a good point that they gave up their nuclear weapons capability in 1994 on the promise that the US would protect them from nuclear-armed Russia. The US is the only other nation on the planet that has a nuclear war-fighting force that is equal to (and honestly--superior to) Russia's and therefore is the only nation that could make this promise. If Trump were to get re-elected and throw Ukraine to the wolves, they would be highly motivated to find a replacement for the US nuclear umbrella. They designed and built many of the nuclear weapon systems in Russia's arsenal, so they definitely know how to do it. They couldn't come up with a credible war-fighting nuclear capability, but even a handful of nuclear weapons would give them a credible nuclear deterrent capability. Moscow is not that far from Kyiv.

This is why American isolationism is so dangerously stupid. It creates all the incentives for massive nuclear proliferation--Ukraine, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, several European countries, maybe Australia--with no thought about what happens next. Being the wealthiest and most target-rich nation on the planet, the US has the most to lose from loose nukes. MAGA seems perfectly happy to contemplate spending a few Trillion dollars on a preemptive strike on Iran to neutralize their possible obtaining of nuclear weapons, but chokes on the idea of spending a few percent of that amount to keep nuclear proliferation from happening elsewhere.

The part of the story that raises eyebrows is the assertion that Ukraine "has the material". They're not supposed to have any, but if that is true, then they probably could get a few usable devices inside of a few weeks.

a reply to: Boomer1947

Well, it seems as if the honorable Ukrainian government did lie after all. Who would have thought that?

But I am sure that it was just this one lie. Everything else that Ukraine reports is always true.

No they won’t.

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: TimBurr

Ukraine uses dirty bomb = Goodbye Ukraine.

It is that simple. ☠️

Which is why the premise of this article is BS.

A nuclear explosive bomb is a horse of a different color, however. Ukraine makes a good point that they gave up their nuclear weapons capability in 1994 on the promise that the US would protect them from nuclear-armed Russia. The US is the only other nation on the planet that has a nuclear war-fighting force that is equal to (and honestly--superior to) Russia's and therefore is the only nation that could make this promise. If Trump were to get re-elected and throw Ukraine to the wolves, they would be highly motivated to find a replacement for the US nuclear umbrella. They designed and built many of the nuclear weapon systems in Russia's arsenal, so they definitely know how to do it. They couldn't come up with a credible war-fighting nuclear capability, but even a handful of nuclear weapons would give them a credible nuclear deterrent capability. Moscow is not that far from Kyiv.

This is why American isolationism is so dangerously stupid. It creates all the incentives for massive nuclear proliferation--Ukraine, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, several European countries, maybe Australia--with no thought about what happens next. Being the wealthiest and most target-rich nation on the planet, the US has the most to lose from loose nukes. MAGA seems perfectly happy to contemplate spending a few Trillion dollars on a preemptive strike on Iran to neutralize their possible obtaining of nuclear weapons, but chokes on the idea of spending a few percent of that amount to keep nuclear proliferation from happening elsewhere.

The part of the story that raises eyebrows is the assertion that Ukraine "has the material". They're not supposed to have any, but if that is true, then they probably could get a few usable devices inside of a few weeks.

Where have you seen Japan, South Korea Saudi Arabia, and Australia clamouring for nuclear warheads?

This is where Democratic America's unrealistic paranoid concerns are not only dangerously stupid they are ineffective and expensive AH to implement. LOL, we've had Democrats for the last 12 or 16 years and the world is a helluva lot less secure.

Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia will all fully support Trump as President and would not come close to seeking nuclear weapons during his next term

a reply to: Boomer1947

It's not isolationism, it's trying to get back on our feet. The last 4 years under Biden/Harris has weakened our global stance and until we get back on top, it's hard to justify protecting everyone else. Yes, we are still a power to be reckoned with, but with Liberal policies, we are weakened to the point that no one takes Biden seriously. With a strong leader, strong military and strong economy, we can cover your ass when needed. Right now, we have none of that and if Harris wins, it WILL get worse.

Appeasement doesn't work, as seen with both Obama and Biden. They didn't do this under Trump because the implied threat is "Do it and we'll kick your ass". It's time to get back to that.

....or would you rather keep going as it is ?