New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
Sign up
126
posted 1 year ago by Senketsu on scored.co (+0 / -0 / +126Score on mirror )
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
20
TallestSkil on scored.co
1 year ago 20 points (+0 / -0 / +20Score on mirror ) 2 children
Eh, I don’t want to render the oil extraction lands uninhabitable. We need that oil for the white reconquest of the world. A chemical weapons attack across the entirety of Muslim lands would even leave the hundreds of billions in infrastructure intact while erasing the actual problem. And since most of it is desert anyway, there’s very little collateral ecosystem damage.
BeefyBelisarius on scored.co
1 year ago 3 points (+0 / -0 / +3Score on mirror ) 1 child
Nukes didn't render Nagasaki and Hiroshima uninhabitable. Considering how fast they rebuilt, nukes are far less destructive than flooding the place with a biological weapon like niggers would be.
TallestSkil on scored.co
1 year ago 3 points (+0 / -0 / +3Score on mirror )
Right, but they were air burst. Ground impact nukes would throw up radioactive debris and cause the “nuclear winter” scenario so often described. At any rate, either destroys the decades of petroleum infrastructure we have spent hundreds of billions to build.
deleted 1 year ago 2 points (+0 / -0 / +2Score on mirror )
Toast message