How will they have ww3 when new=clr weapons don't even actually work???

How will they have ww3 when new=clr weapons don't even actually work???

I'm not saying I believe this site's claims 100% but I think it could be true. I'm about 50/50 on the idea that they're real. We've seen in videos what looks like them going off, but so have we seen bigfoot, and the UFO. so I honestly find it challenging to know for sure if it's all just been a propaganda piece or not.

Your thoughts???

heiwaco.tripod.com...

Prove that the theories behind them don't work. And that people that watched them detonate and talk about it are lying. Or that air samples taken by U-2 pilots are faked, or that all the other non-video evidence is lying, or faked.

reply to post by spartacus699


I am sure people of Japan would disagree that they don't work..

And those were just baby bombs comparatively speaking.

First off, WW3 doesn't need to be, and probably wont be fought with nuclear weapons.

Secondly, this guys is spewing garbage from his mouth.

That total 600 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 uranium-235 atoms during some nano-seconds split 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64,128 (or 1, 3, 9, 27, 81 ...) ... ~300 000 000 000 000 000 000 000, 600 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 atoms into 1 200 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 other, smaller atoms (fractions) by free, evil neutrons flying around at the speed of light and in the process released pure energy killing children is not possible. And that the free neutrons missed 98.5% of the uranium-235 atoms leaving 394 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 uranium-235 atoms in the bomb not fissioned.

Atoms cannot split into atoms! 1 atom cannot become 2 atoms. This guys is highly misinformed.

Thirdly. Nuclear reactions take place every single day. I guess the sun really isn't shinning, right?

reply to post by Zaphod58


that's a tall order

Being on Tripod already raises a red flag....
Kinda reminds me of the flat earth people.
I accept some pretty wild conspiracies, but not that one.

yea nuke bombs do not work all of Japan and others lied , all the ones that suffer form nuke tests radiation are faking it and we told the people of Bikini atoll we are going to set off a nuke just so we can have it as a fishing resort for the Brass of the Navy, and magically make most of it vanish video.pbs.org... from the link

Beginning in the 1950s, American and Soviet scientists engaged in a dangerous race to see who could build and detonate the world's largest bomb.

and the Tsar Bomb is all a fake as well

FIRE DOESN'T EXIST!

reply to post by anon29


Exactly, and until you can, you can't say that nuclear weapons don't work. There is too much non-video evidence that can't be disproven.

ImAmericanIDeserveIt
First off, WW3 doesn't need to be, and probably wont be fought with nuclear weapons.

Secondly, this guys is spewing garbage from his mouth.

That total 600 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 uranium-235 atoms during some nano-seconds split 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64,128 (or 1, 3, 9, 27, 81 ...) ... ~300 000 000 000 000 000 000 000, 600 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 atoms into 1 200 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 other, smaller atoms (fractions) by free, evil neutrons flying around at the speed of light and in the process released pure energy killing children is not possible. And that the free neutrons missed 98.5% of the uranium-235 atoms leaving 394 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 uranium-235 atoms in the bomb not fissioned.

Atoms cannot split into atoms! 1 atom cannot become 2 atoms. This guys is highly misinformed.

Thirdly. Nuclear reactions take place every single day. I guess the sun really isn't shinning, right?

Atoms do split into atoms. It is called nuclear fission. The fissioning of the U-236 atom in an atomic bomb is an example. When U-235 absorbs a neutron it becomes U-236, the protons and neutrons rearrange and it instantly splits into two new atoms also releasing one, two, or three neutrons and an energetic photon. The two atoms that are produced follow a normal distribution, with each new atom usually being close to half the size of the original uranium atom. This is where the radioactive strontium, cesium, etc. come from. The guy is wrong. Neutrons do not fly around at the speed of light, only photons do that. Neutrons have differents speeds (energies), fast and slow (also called thermal neutrons because they move at speeds similar to the speeds the atoms vibrate according to their temperature). Most of the atoms in a nuclear core actually do not fission. Atoms are mostly empty space. The trick is to get enough of the atoms to fission and release neutrons to get a runaway chain reaction. This is done by compressing the material, inserting a burst of neutrons at the moment of maximum compression, reflecting some of the neutrons back into the core that escape the assembly, and holding the core into a compressed state as long as possible before it blows apart.

reply to post by spartacus699


Even if nuclear weapons didn't work (which I believe that they do), EVERY war except for one has been fought without them, and in that one, they weren't used until the very end.

You don't need nukes to have a world war.

Does this guy even know that if we did have another world war, that nukes would be the last resort?

Does this ignoramus know that NUKES DO WORK? But they are indefeasible as a effective weapon if x country was going to invade and occupy another? Sorry the only people that would want to use nukes are terrorist groups and N.korea, even then for Korea to use them would be outright suicide for it's own people and it wouldn't even be a second thought.

My personal opinion is, that only small terrorist groups would want to use them, they don't care about taking over a country, they only want to kill others even if it means killing themselves in the process.

When I say nukes would be a last resort I mean it. We now have weapons that would be way more effective at killing off threats than any nuke. What you wanna take over a country and occupy it when the area has been bathed in radiation? That's a great idea.

gr1ill3d
Does this guy even know that if we did have another world war, that nukes would be the last resort?

Does this ignoramus know that NUKES DO WORK? But they are indefeasible as a effective weapon if x country was going to invade and occupy another? Sorry the only people that would want to use nukes are terrorist groups and N.korea, even then for Korea to use them would be outright suicide for it's own people and it wouldn't even be a second thought.

My personal opinion is, that only small terrorist groups would want to use them, they don't care about taking over a country, they only want to kill others even if it means killing themselves in the process.

When I say nukes would be a last resort I mean it. We now have weapons that would be way more effective at killing off threats than any nuke. What you wanna take over a country and occupy it when the area has been bathed in radiation? That's a great idea.

When we have another world war nukes will not be a last resort weapon. In World War II nukes were used as a first resort. The Japanese were trying to negotiate an end to the war, but the US wanted to test these weapons on the enemy and send a message to the rest of the world. When nukes go off the radiation doesn't last forever. The most damaging radioactive byproducts have the shortest half lives. People can venture into ground zero in less than a week. Why would nuclear weapons used by North Korea against South Korea be suicide? Who's gonna nuke them back? Do you really think the US is willing to sacrifice Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, D.C. for Seoul? The only thing "terrorists" actually care about is taking over countries. They aren't crazy people who just like to kill people. Islamic terrorists aren't mainly terrorists. They are religious revolutionaries. They use terrorism as a tactic. The whole purpose of Al Qaida is to establish Islamic governments in the middle east. Israel and the US are secondary enemies who help their main enemies, the dictatorships that govern the middle east. If Al Qaida gets a hold of nuclear weapons or already has them according to the late Bin Ladin, they wouldn't automatically use them against a US city. If they use them they no longer have them. Also, there would be retaliation. Their use would be a severe escalation. That is the same reasoning Bin Ladin gave for not flying planes into nuclear power plants.

Adaluncatif
The Japanese were trying to negotiate an end to the war,

If Japan had wanted to end the war they could have very easily - by simply surrendering. But revisionists want to change history to bash the allies and USA

Whether they exist or not, the explosions how ever they are detonated are very real and very destructive.

I think they make sense science wise so i have no problems believing they are real and very dangerous.

After all, whether a bomb blows you to bits or not is one thing, we know radioactive material is real and dangerous to your health - so that in any type of bomb is pretty damned nasty.

The Neutron in the bombs are what scare me more than actual fire balls and blast waves.

hellobruce

Adaluncatif
The Japanese were trying to negotiate an end to the war,

If Japan had wanted to end the war they could have very easily - by simply surrendering. But revisionists want to change history to bash the allies and USA

edit on 16-9-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)

You forgot to consider the possibility that history was wrong in the first place. Whoever wins a war writes the history of it. Sometimes revision is necessary. If you look deeply into the events of World War II a lot of revision is necessary. It is a fact that the Japanese were preparing for surrender. The writing was on the wall. Hitler was already defeated. What were the Japanese going to do? Invade the United States? The Japanese were facing total defeat, they knew it, and they were nuked after they were already finished. The Japanese could not have ended the war easily, especially if the enemy didn't want the war to end.

reply to post by Adaluncatif

Have you done research in to what Japan was thinking prior to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings ? or what the US was going to face before they dropped the bombs and why they did it, I believe you did not. the US view of it csis.org...

reply to post by gr1ill3d

Im wondering why Nukes seems to be the end-all. It is not.
Far more serious and totally plausible are the use of chem, biological, radiological weapons etc.

What better way to NOT destroy like nukes do everywhere..is to leave everything still STANDING!? You haul the bodies way and occupy homes, building stores, schools etc...by killing all the people.

Nukes would destroy land and property. Infect the whole populice...and move right in to the still standing structures, cars, etc...

Nukes destroy everything in a given area into rubble. Its so much better to kill everyone...drag 'em away...and use their stuff.

reply to post by Adaluncatif


Japan was not going to surrender without a guarantee that the emperor would be left in place and not harmed. If the US didn't agree then they were ready to fight to the last to protect him. Even after he recorded the surrender message a number of military units tried a coup to keep fighting.