New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
Sign up
I want to preface this with two statements: One, I apologize if this is not the right place to post. ConsumeProduct seems to be a gathering place for people who question established narratives, so hopefully this fits. And two, on the face of it, this seems like an insane question. But I don't know if an insane person can witness his own psychosis, and I do feel pretty grounded.

I have no strong evidence that nuclear weapons don't exist. But it seems bizarre that, in the 80 years since the US nuked Japan, no rogue state or terrorist group has detonated a dirty bomb in an enemy city.

I have slowly been waking up to the layers of deception that countries throw on their citizens. For me, one of the biggest ones is the lie that HIV is deadly. Without derailing into too much detail, the virus is harmless, and many people get diagnosed with AIDS despite testing negative, while many others test positive for HIV but don't get diagnosed with AIDS (and the criteria vary widely from country to country, e.g. AIDS in Africa aligns much more closely with malnutrition). And Fauci and the US government capitalized on this hoax in order to make people more afraid and less connected with each other, because such people are easier to control. And what I see playing out over and over again is governments layering in their deception, so that when someone starts questioning one lie, they have no idea where to stop. For instance, health experts in the US tell us that we need to circumcise newborn baby boys in order to prevent the spread of HIV. But circumcision is insane even before the HIV claim, and the claim itself is nonsense, and HIV is not even dangerous. This apparatus also lies more generally, e.g. telling us that the polio virus rather than insecticides paralyzed people in the 40s.

So, the existence of nuclear weapons seems like another great way to instill fear in people: "Don't live your life, you might die in a horrible explosion at any second." (I believe the claims of global warming operate in a similar manner.) But that on its own is not a convincing reason to disbelieve something. I know that Israel stole nuclear secrets from the US, and they probably assassinated JFK when he wanted to inspect their nuclear facilities. Is this part of the layered deception? Netanyahu keeps telling the world that we need to destroy Iran because they will soon have nuclear bombs, but he wants them destroyed regardless, and this sounds like the exact same pretext Israel used in order to make the US destroy Iraq.

I've heard the narrative that the US actually firebombed Japan, and we pretended we have nuclear weapons to posture against the Soviets. Chernobyl was a wasteland for decades (or still is?), and yet Hiroshima and Nagasaki supposedly recovered just fine? I can't imagine a nuclear facility would have magnitudes more energy than a weapon created explicitly to destroy an enemy nation.

Over the last few months, I became convinced that the Holocaust did not happen in the traditional sense: Yes, Hitler put Jews in concentration camps, but this was because Jews declared war on Germany. I don't see this action as fundamentally different from what the US did to the Japanese. And I think the 271,000 casualties that the Red Cross reported happened when the Allies bombed German supply lines and they could no longer feed anyone. Maybe Hitler planned on killing them once he could no longer use them to fuel his war machine, but the gas chamber narrative is utterly ridiculous.

Anyway, I say all this to highlight what looks like another layered deception. I know that Hitler removed Jews from universities, talking about how he didn't want Jewish physics in academia. When I first heard this, I scoffed, because surely nothing could be more objective than physics. But academics have acknowledged for a long time that physics has stagnated, and this stagnation appears to have happened ever since we discovered relativity and quantum mechanics. If the bombs only functioned because of breakthroughs in relativity, but the bombs didn't actually exist, does this mean that relativity is also a lie? Was Einstein another piece of propaganda in order to praise Jewish supremacy?

Writing this out even sounds insane to me. Aside from a few thin conspiratorial strands here, I have no reason to doubt that relativity and quantum mechanics are real. And as I understand them (which is not much), their existence allows technologies like GPS and microchips to function. But a few years ago, I faced the same bizarre dichotomy in the face of vaccines: Okay, I said, the covid vaccine is bullshit. But *surely* health officials were not lying to me for the last hundred years about the efficacy of all of these *other* vaccines...right? But now I know that they are all also useless poison, and this narrative is omnipresent, and anyone who questions their holy status gets ruthlessly attacked.

I could go off on so many tangents here, but I should wrap this up. I would be very interested in any books you know of that argue that nuclear weapons do not exist (or that they do). For a few years now, I've started to feel vaguely the same way about the moon landings, i.e. that they never happened and were another lie propagated by the US to posture against the Soviets (or at least to steal taxpayers' money to fund horrible shit). But when I looked for arguments for this position, I found them pretty weak, so maybe I'm far off the mark here and we just had shitty cameras or something back then.

Thank you for your time.
You must log in or sign up to comment
28 comments:
GoldenInnosStatue on scored.co
11 days ago 7 points (+0 / -0 / +7Score on mirror ) 1 child
ofc they do, israel had to steal Uranium from both south africa and pennsylvania to obtain the nukes they have today

if nukes were a fad, they wouldn't be shitting in their boots at the thought of sand niggers having nuclear capabilities
weak_plenty on scored.co
11 days ago 3 points (+0 / -0 / +3Score on mirror ) 1 child
>if nukes were a fad, they wouldn't be shitting in their boots at the thought of sand niggers having nuclear capabilities

This on its own does not convince me, because this fear could all be theater. I spent a year watching world leaders supposedly terrified that covid was going to kill billions of us, but they lied in order to transfer wealth to themselves and destroy people's communities. I also think this is an excellent justification to destroy your enemy. Apparently, Einstein told the US that Germany was close to creating a nuclear weapon, which is what we did to Iraq and what Netanyahu wants us to do to Iran.
GoldenInnosStatue on scored.co
11 days ago 0 points (+0 / -0 )
but covid was a sham, made in labs in China and was practically IN the vaccine

nukes are very real and literally exist as a detterant to a US invasion (its why north korea was never "americanized")

granted i think people vastly overestimate the damage it can do, as japan recovered rather quickly from the damages it caused

you know what's more dangerous than nukes? Niggers

forcing your women to fuck niggers will destroy your country faster than any nuclear bomb you can drop on said country, for i'd rather get nuked a thousand times than have my country invaded by niggers who are protected by the (((govt))) to do as they please.
detransthrowaway on scored.co
11 days ago 5 points (+0 / -0 / +5Score on mirror ) 1 child
It's a weirdly divisive topic on here. I say there's no way nuclear weapons can't exist. We have hundreds of videos of nuclear tests from several different countries across decades. They're markedly distinct and identifiable from any other type of bomb. The yield for weight is much higher, and the type of damage is similarly unique. You can detect where one has been dropped too. That's how the United States first learned that the Soviets had a nuclear weapon, they found radioactive isotopes in the water.

It doesn't work like a firebomb. A lot of people on here will tell you for some reason that Hiroshima was firebombed. [This is Tokyo, firebombed.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#/media/File:Tokyo_1945-3-10-1.jpg) [This is Hiroshima, nuked.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#/media/File:Hiroshima_aftermath.jpg) Notice how the buildings closer to the center of the explosion are completely destroyed, while in a firebomb the surviving structures are more evenly spaced. Firebombs burn pretty much everything that isn't stone or brick to the ground and even then that's just a generalization. Nuclear explosions atomize anything near enough to it. Stone buildings are just sturdier, so we have survivors like the Genbaku Dome. Another photo of a firebombing. [Dresden, in my opinion one of the most overlooked events of WWII.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden#/media/File:Fotothek_df_ps_0000010_Blick_vom_Rathausturm.jpg)

As for your comment about Chernobyl, kind of different things. The Pripyat area is now almost around background radiation, but the last bit for it to be truly background radiation won't go away for a few thousand more years. The initial deadly part left quickly. The main difference I can think of is the radioactive material itself. Hiroshima was one big, bright nuke, at one place, at one time. It left nothing behind, and because it was an early nuclear weapon one can also easily claim it was quite different to Chernobyl. Chernobyl had a larger quantity of reacted material, which importantly **stayed** after the disaster. The Elephant's Foot is still there. The abandoned plant itself will still kill you to go inside.
weak_plenty on scored.co
11 days ago 3 points (+0 / -0 / +3Score on mirror ) 1 child
Very interesting information, thank you for sharing. I see the distinction between Chernobyl and Japan.

In the picture of Hiroshima, where was the actual detonation (?) point? The building that's standing on the right makes me think that there is no pattern here of what's standing and what's not.

About the videos, I've seen a handful of them that look pretty fake, e.g. ones that came from the US in the 40s where a house is completely blown away, yet somehow the camera recording it all doesn't even move. How could that possibly happen? I'm interested in much more recent videos about nuclear weapon testing, especially from other countries, will look into this.
detransthrowaway on scored.co
10 days ago 0 points (+0 / -0 )
I don't actually know if the detonation point is visible in the photo. You might be able to compare with physical landmarks and the Genbaku Dome (which was left standing and turned into a memorial). As for the nuke videos, no clue. Some could be controlled simulations meant to **showcase** what it does without irradiating an area. Maybe they had really good zoom on their cameras. I don't know.
Yggdrasill on scored.co
11 days ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror ) 1 child
The arguments I’ve seen against nukes existing seem to all be about game theory and if your opponent thinks you have something it can be just as beneficial as actually having that thing - but it seems like with the stakes of nations against nations and militaries against militaries, I just don’t see that as possible that multiple nations would not have figured it out and also that all these separate nations came together to have a secret handshake deal to all ruse the public in unison… I mean unless you’re of the opinion that there’s an overarching group that controls all governments and everything is fake and gay and they all agree to trick us with the same lies, I don’t see that being possible to fake.

Plus, you’ve seen the exponential leaps that technology takes - does it really seem that implausible that bomb tech doesn’t also take exponential leaps? Like we went from horse and buggy to artificial intelligence in 100 years but bombs never got bigger?
weak_plenty on scored.co
11 days ago 2 points (+0 / -0 / +2Score on mirror ) 1 child
You raise a great point. While I could see western nations lying in lockstep to prop up a mass deception in order to control people, it would really surprise me if Russia, China, and Iran were doing the same thing. But why have we not seen a single nuclear weapon go off in all these years? I simply don't believe that everyone adheres to the mutually-assured destruction pact, especially when ideologies like Islam preach that people go to heaven for eternity if they kill their enemies.
Yggdrasill on scored.co
11 days ago 0 points (+0 / -0 )
Sorry, editing this because I replied without finishing reading your response - I do think mutually assured destruction is real regardless of ideology, nukes put the world on an escalation ladder that I think even fanatical ideological countries/governments like Muslim countries understand, that it could end in total civilizational destruction.

I would speculate that they also don’t necessarily want to destroy certain ancient monoliths that I think the more mystical-minded of the wealthy are fascinated with in terms of discovering man’s origins and the bigger questions about humanity.
Breadpilled on scored.co
11 days ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror ) 1 child
This is a topic I've never delved into at length. However, I will say that I think Israel killing JFK over him demanding that they disclose the details of their nuclear program is enough to convince me that they're a real thing.
weak_plenty on scored.co
11 days ago 0 points (+0 / -0 )
Agreed, assassinating the president of the most powerful country in the world does seem like a pretty strange move to do to keep maintaining a lie.
goodnightiryna on scored.co
11 days ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror ) 1 child
> no rogue state or terrorist group has detonated a dirty bomb in an enemy city.

Dirty bombs != Nukes

The fact that no dirty bombs have been deployed, makes the argument of nukes existing, stronger.

We know for an absolute fact that dirty bombs exist and can be created with minimal skill, merely requiring the raw materials. The incredibly tight control on these materials shows the strength of the security mechanism, which must exist for a reason... Because it acknowledges how dangerous nukes are.

While not a definitive argument on its own, it does add credibility.
weak_plenty on scored.co
11 days ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror )
Thank you for the correction, and I see what you're saying
ImBillCurtis on scored.co
8 days ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror )
Weird how all of those “nuclear sites” that were supposedly irradiated to shit are livable like a couple years later. Too much fuckery behind it to make me believe in it
IVDEA-DELENDA-EST on scored.co
11 days ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror ) 1 child
Here you go
- https://youtube.com/watch?v=4szqzNVrJN8
- https://youtube.com/watch?v=P59a9hxAvNI
- https://www.bitchute.com/video/JiS1BvrDjHJT
- https://www.bitchute.com/video/bOO8PGgN7Z2e
- https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/357395102/#q357395588
- https://www.henrymakow.com/2020/07/nuclear-bombs-do-not-exist.html
- https://archive.ph/d89p5
- https://youtube.com/watch?v=fWhOn5St3uM
- Book - Death Object: Exploding the Nuclear Weapons Hoax by Akio Nakatani https://archive.org/details/8d-0de-2
weak_plenty on scored.co
11 days ago 0 points (+0 / -0 )
I am going through these, thank you
HarlechMan on scored.co
11 days ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror )
It looks like Chernobyl was already addressed in part, but to further explain the point, you need to understand the scale. The bomb releases a lot of energy in milliseconds A powerplant releases a tremendously higher amount if energy, but over years.

The Little Boy bomb dropped on Hiroshima had 64kg of uranium in it. Chernobyl reactor 4 had 190,000kg. It was not enriched enough for a nuclear detonation, but it was a hell of enough to be carried aloft by soot from uncontrolled conventional fires kept slight by the heat of the fuel.
CaptainTrouble on scored.co
10 days ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror ) 1 child
I think healthy skepticism is a good thing and it's worth questioning these types of topics. I get the arguments and I've posed the same question before.

I have another speculative theory. I think nukes exist now but did not exist in the manner they were advertised 70 years ago. I think governments in the past exaggerated nuclear weapons and what their current armament was capable of significantly. Over the past 60 years though the technology has somewhat caught up to the exaggerations.
weak_plenty on scored.co
10 days ago 0 points (+0 / -0 ) 1 child
I could definitely see that being the case, the same as the US failing to initially land on the moon, pushing through to look good against the Soviets, and later actually developing the technology.
CaptainTrouble on scored.co
10 days ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror )
Some of the things about nukes that make me question the narrative is the following:

- The idea that nukes would destroy the whole world if ever used
- The constant news articles we see in current times about if "old nuclear arsenals are still in working order"
- The fact modern militaries have all decided that big nukes aren't useful and they need to use smaller tactical nukes instead

The reason these 3 things are causes for concern for me is because anytime the government promotes something as an apocalyptic scenario, it tends to be to manipulate the public and it is rarely ever true. Climate change was basically our generation's nukes.

The fact we constantly see news articles about whether old nukes will even work seems like it's the government's way of priming the public for the fact they don't actually have "old nukes" to use in the first place. The journalists seem to be running cover for the fact nukes don't exist.

The fact all modern militaries suggest big nukes aren't useful but smaller tactical nukes are suggests to me that big nukes were never viable and governments can't actually make them. These smaller tactical nukes are simply what the technology is now capable of and they didn't even exist 70 years ago.
Amerikanerr on scored.co
11 days ago 0 points (+0 / -0 ) 1 child
HIV does not exist in nature. It is a man-made virus from both a crossing, a splicing, of the bovine leukemia with the sheep lymphoma viruses. It was created in 1961/1962 at UCLA initially to force cancers on animals to study them, but was later given to the War Department. The War Department was doing a lot of germ warfare experiments and had to find “undesirables” on whom to experiment. They decided on homosexuals so they looked at health conditions in the major cities of New York, Houston, Los Angeles and San Francisco. They found that 90% of the people that were getting hepatitis were homosexuals taking amyl nitrite (poppers) and other deadly drugs. They said they had a remedy which were the Hepatitis A and B vaccines. If you look at the old archives you will see old advertisements in this time period telling gay men all over the country in major cities to get the hepatitis-B vaccine. So 90% of the people with Hepatitis B in those cities were delivered that vaccine specifically by the NSA War Department. Ninety percent of those people who got AIDs were homosexuals who got that vaccine. Ten percent were heterosexuals who got that vaccine contaminated with AIDs or got a blood transfusion from someone who had AIDs.

The AIDs specific symptoms are created by the toxins put in the vaccine, like the smallpox vaccine in Africa, which they gave 125 million doses to. Basically, it damages the body’s ability to cleanse and repair its cells. It damages the lymphatic system permanently, which is why patients acquire rampant aggressive lymphomas before their death. The smallpox vaccine caused dozens of African countries to become bankrupt because (((they))) came in with a "cure".

There were over 200 couples where one of the partners had HIV since the early 70s. Their partner stopped using any kind of protection, and none of them got any HIV/AIDS. It's a myth.

The only way you can get HIV/AIDs is by injection or you get a transfusion with contaminated blood. So, don't ever let a needle get near you. You never know what's in it.
weak_plenty on scored.co
11 days ago 0 points (+0 / -0 ) 1 child
Very interesting information, but not at all what I've come across. I have read that the US created HIV in the Congo in the 1960s when we gave them polio vaccines that were in some way made with chimpanzee livers, and that SIV crossed over from chimps to humans. Where did you hear about us creating it at UCLA and the war department using it as a bioweapon?

I read the book by Celia Farber, which detailed the work of Peter Duesberg. He studied HIV in great depth, and he believes that it is completely harmless, even going so far as to say that he would let someone inject him with it on live TV.
goodnightiryna on scored.co
11 days ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror ) 1 child
A lot of this stuff is just Ockham's razor...

A. Giant conspiracy with bleeding edge technology.

B. Some faggot fucked something he shouldn't have.

I'll grant you, it could be A, there is no real reason to think it's not A, except that B happens about a million times every single day.
weak_plenty on scored.co
11 days ago 0 points (+0 / -0 )
HIV definitely did not come from someone fucking a monkey. Ask yourself why it only arose in the last hundred years, when humans have had gross animal sex for millennia but governments have only recently had the technology to poison us on a mass scale. If you're interested, RFK's book on Anthony Fauci is a good jumping-off point into this particular rabbit hole.
-1
HerrBBQ on scored.co
11 days ago -1 points (+0 / -0 / -1Score on mirror ) 1 child
I would strongly caution you to rethink and research some of your positions, because you, like many others here, appear to have stumbled past the point of healthy scepticism into the chasm of illogical contraryism. I could go point by point through your post listing which of your theories I personally agree and disagree with (If you're curious it would be a bit about 40-60), but the point I would rather emphasize is that you should be considering any one theory independent of any other. I shit you not, there are people on this board that went from "Holocaust fake" to eventually "space fake" because they used the conclusion of each theory as foundational evidence for the next theory. It quickly becomes completely ungrounded in reality. And no, I don't think nukes are fake.
weak_plenty on scored.co
11 days ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror )
I'd be curious what you think about vaccines, because that was the dam that burst everything else for me. Years ago, I spent a lot of time researching antidepressants, and I discovered that the whole enterprise rested on a house of cards. Covid comes around, and experts swear up and down that the covid vaccines are safe and effective, but they simply lied. And that made me research other vaccines, and while a few of them may offer temporary protection, the harms almost certainly outweigh the benefits.

But our governments have so thoroughly lied about vaccines, and I think it would be a mistake to keep looking at all of these deceptions in isolation. For instance, it is clear to me that the push twenty years ago for antidepressants is now happening for ADHD medications. And while a person like you might stand back and say "You need to evaluate every drug independently," the truth is that the demons creating these drugs have lied before and have every incentive to lie again, and any default position other than extreme skepticism is insane.

Does the deception end there? I don't know. Fauci terrorized people with AIDS diagnoses and the spectre of HIV, just like he did with covid 40 years later, and covid lockdowns fucked up an entire generation and gave billions more to the wealthy. And you have the media going along with that lie instead of understanding that gay men were dying in the 80s because of party drugs and antibiotics from rampant STDs. Then Matthew Shepherd rolls around, and instead of correctly reporting that his former lover went on a meth-fueled bender and killed Shepherd because Shepherd wouldn't give him money or meth, the media screamed that this was a random homophobic assault.

So, I appreciate where you're coming from, and I agree I have almost certainly gotten some pieces of information wrong, but I think it's a grave mistake to look at all of these in isolation.
-1
HelloImSan on scored.co
8 days ago -1 points (+0 / -0 / -1Score on mirror )
The sun exists. Stars exist. Given how much energy those things release, that it is possible to release that kind of energy is a given. (assuming we accept the standard explanations for what those things are). So either: we learnt to copy the sun and created nukes; or we did a really good job of faking it.

I wouldn't put it past the jews to fake it. But that such a technology is theoretically possible seems certain.
-2
TallestSkil on scored.co
11 days ago -2 points (+0 / -0 / -2Score on mirror )
Obviously.

No, I didn’t read any of it. They obviously exist. It’s a matter of the laws of physics.
Toast message