Nuclear War thread

>>34205925
>We haven't had one of these in a while

We had one like yesterday.

>>34205971
Came in here to say that.

Middle East is getting interesting. Will Saudi become nuclear over these new tensions?

>>34205984
>Will Saudi become nuclear over these new tensions?
Probably

File: maxresdefault (1).jpg (81KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1280x720px

>>34205984
We have sold the tech, components or chemicals for chemical/nuclear WMD to worse people, so it's easily possible

>>34207505
They got it from the Pakis.

>>34207505
Are you french?

>>34207633
No, I'm from a country which exports about 100 tonnes of chemical weapons and that sold components for nuclear weapons to Israel, Iran and Pakistan. That's why I used a pic of Angela "As long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, we need to have these capabilities" Merkel

>>34205925

I've seen this guys videos before. Some of the "expert opinion" bits on defence get a little amateurish compared to the god tier pro editing on the rest of it, but the first nuke drop on the guy mid interview was fucking spine chilling.

Amazing videos.

>>34208128
>I've seen this guys videos before. Some of the "expert opinion" bits on defence get a little amateurish compared to the god tier pro editing on the rest of it, but the first nuke drop on the guy mid interview was fucking spine chilling.
Any idea who is funding these videos? Clearly they're British but who is behind it? And for what purpose are these videos being made? This shit ain't cheap.

But yeah, amazing videos.

>>34208213

I've talked to the guy, he's just an amateur filmmaker who does this for fun.

If you really think about everything you see in it, it's actually quite simple. BBC background assets are easy to come by (you can literally ask to walk in and take footage of it, they're quite accomodating, I've done it in Glasgow before.) and then you just greenscreen it in over your actor.

Get a few decentish friends from any acting group you're in, a little after effects and there you go. There's not a lot in it.

https://vimeo.com/album/2167779/video/18781528

>>34205925

Not gonna liie, that got pretty scary coming down to the end. It's crazy how close we are to this becoming a reality.

>>34208301
>I've talked to the guy, he's just an amateur filmmaker who does this for fun.
That whole production must have cost over $20k. I don't know many people who can do that kind of stuff for fun.

>>34209760

It's the understated way it creeps up to it that got me big time. Even after an obvious nuclear esclation, they're still trying to report as normal and then everything just ramps up in mere minutes.

That element of it felt chillingly realistic.

>>34209810

In what way? It's almost all stock footage, a couple of green screened actors and a lot of messing around in Adobe After Effects.

Where exactly does the price jump for you come from?

>>34209815

Newscasters are trained to stay calm even in the face of certain doom. They'll be reporting live until the world ends, so they can't afford to lose their shit.

>>34209827
studio, greens screen actors, editing time, licensing footage etc

>>34209760
>It's crazy how close we are to this becoming a reality.
i don't think we're going to have a nuclear war with russia any time soon mate, if anything trump has cooled down the situation significantly. the media is posing a greater threat to our safety at the moment.

>>34209869

>studio

Literally what studio? It's all stock footage edited in behind them on green screen, and absolutely at most he just asked the BBC to do their studio in an off hour. Like I said above, I've done it before at their Glasgow one, there's tons of downtime and they're very supportive of people looking to learn filmmaking.

>greens screen

Wow, putting up a bit of green fabric. So expensive.

>actors

Can almost always be found for free and judging by their "military expert" (the only bad part of the video) he most certainly was. There is perhaps a couple hours of work at most in this even if he did give them a few bob.

> editing time

Sitting in his house with after effects isn't costing him anything.

>licensing footage

Stock footage is very often free or more likely just torrented or recorded himself. Most of the footage in this was just grabbed from BBC broadcasts.

Still nothing thats actually costing anything.

>>34209898
Mate, 4 years before no one believed in a large war on europe border. Everything is possible in that world...

>>34209760
the ripped off sound from "fail safe" was retarded. the sound came from an analog telephone melting.

>>34205925
>nearly an hour of voice overs of stock footage

Not gonna finish this, sorry.

>>34210323

Have patience, Anon. Were you expecting explosions and stuff?

>>34210353
No, it's just not that good.

It's like a modern, shitty Threads if it had literally no plot and 3 actors who stood in place for the whole film.

File: Russians.jpg (416KB, 1807x1384px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 1807x1384px

>>34210099
Don't ruin our tinfoil phantasy. We like to pretend America and the west are controlled by jews and they're evil looking to destroy the white haven utopia known as Russia. Every Russian is a true white and all Nato and US forces want to destroy Russia and her peaceful nice well educated pure white people.

USA will lose in a war with RUssia and Europe too.

>>34210423

>"Literally no plot."

A Russian plane was shot down by NATO which causes Russia to gather its forces and invade neighboring countries in a show of force. This of course escalates to nuclear war as more and more countries get involved.

Of course if it's a low-budget film it's going to take an approach like that. It's done in a very realistic and plausible way. If this were real and you sat on your ass all day watching these broadcasts would you say that there was "literally no plot"?

>>34209842
>Newscasters are trained to stay calm even in the face of certain doom.

Tell that to the ones who covered the US election.

>>34210734
That only applies to actually important news. Anything else is "holy shit dramatize this as much as possible we need views"

Look at coverage of 9/11, people were clearly upset but kept relaying information effectively as soon as they got it.

It's way easier to see the difference with weather, if they're hyping it up it's probably not that bad, if they're playing it cool, shit is about to go down.

>>34210633
>If this were real and you sat on your ass all day watching these broadcasts would you say that there was "literally no plot"?

There's no plot to reality. There are reasons for the events that reality consists of, but no plot.

Anyhow, all of you autists arguing about amateur video production values have scared Oppenheimer away. He won't come out of hiding as long as you're all squabbling in the undergrowth like a bunch of kids camping in the back yard.

>>34210761
>Anything else is "holy shit dramatize this as much as possible we need views"

I don't think that's what they were dialing for with their election coverage. I've seen livelier coverage at a funeral. Martha Radditz, who I find repulsive at the best of times, looked and sounded like she was getting a Drano enema while watching her favorite relative be gang raped by midget Nazi bikers with leprosy.

All of these people were manifesting real, physical pain. They were too detached from reality to maintain professionalism. To them, it was a disaster and they couldn't maintain objectivity to save their lives.

Jesus, I wish we had some journalists like Cronkite or Rooney still around.

File: 1489005283015.jpg (62KB, 376x436px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 376x436px

>>34210478
Russians already won. Just look at the state the US is currently in:

-Two political parties are at literal war with each other
- huge amount of distrust among the population against government and politicians
- half the country thinks POTUS is the devil and other half sees him as a saint
- media is openly spreading lies against the President
- huge demographic shift towards low-IQ side of the population
- previous POTUS committed treason and didn't fulfill his Constitutional obligation to protect the borders; there were no repercussions
- millions of illegals and other low-IQ retards are now majority io under-18 age group; whites who made this country for what it is are now a minority in their own country
- complete degradation of culture and shift towards sin
- complete disregard for God and common decency
- near-complete destruction of family unit
- mental illness is now being pushed as normal
- social fabric has been completely ripped apart by liberals

US is now looking at culprits and all they can is point at MUH RUSSIANS and blame them for everything. In fact, half the West is doing the same thing... UK, France, Sweden, Germany... they're all blaming MUH RUSSIANS for their predicament. France isn't even France anymore and UK is quickly descending into at jihadist shithole. Sweden, and now Germany, have also committed a demographic seppuku.

What's funny is that Russians had nothing to do with it but will probably take credit for it at some point. All they have to do now is survive the next 25 years and they'll win.

>>34205925
>Amazingly well produced. Creator of this is unknown and there's an aura of mystery of who financed this and why.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06zw32h

>>34212295
That's not the OP post - but it is bloody good, if a little chilling at seeing how quickly it goes nuclear - considering some of the participants have indeed had those roles, and their successors not being radically different.

>>34212295
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b065ylyy
this is also pretty good

>>34212220
>France isn't even France anymore and UK is quickly descending into at jihadist shithole.

Wanna know how I know you've never visited either country and only go off /pol/ memes?

How do you think Ireland would fair in a nuclear war? Particularly northern Ireland?

>>34205925
>top comment: "WHERE THE HELL IS BARGAIN HUNT"

kek

>>34213991
Not the guy who made the comment but, go ahead and explain

>>34212220
You are watching too much TV. The world is not half as bad as you think it is.

>>34214796
Probably ok.

>>34215912
>You are watching too much TV. The world is not half as bad as you think it is.
not him but the world is actually worse because media is constantly lying.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/06/shock-video-cnn-creates-fakenews-london-following-terror-attacks-stages-anti-isis-muslim-protesters/

Left has aligned themselves with Islamists to ensure the destruction of the West.

>>34205925
Chally 2 is the most asthetic modern MBT, prove me wrong. Professional tip: you cannot.

>>34215927
You are allowing people to tell you what to think. You are allowing news to sell its package to you and you live in a bubble where this constant stream of 'information' just builds to your cognitive bias.

You are not alone sadly. Most people lack the energy to apply critical thinking to the product the mass media sells. This prevents them from stripping out the extraneous filler and extract just the factual substance.

Nothing I say here will convince you of that. Even recurring predictive failures on the part of people who shape your opinion for you will have no effect. Its just your nature.

>>34205925

That lady's voice is a lot nicer than the American EAS standard robot voice guy. Is the warning at the end realistic? Is that what BBC warnings and screen actually look like?

>>34205925

Why do we still consider Russia our "totally not enemies but enemies" again?

I understand differences between who supports who regarding the middle east, but before the Arab spring and resulting ISIS uprising we were didn't have much to argue about, is it just leftovers from the previous 40-50 years of them being our ideological enemy? Or is it just a power struggle thing?

>>34216447
Russia wants to dominate the states it considers in its sphere of influence. It sees a US dominated NATO as a threat to that.

>>34216447
>Why do we still consider Russia our "totally not enemies but enemies" again?
Jewish neocons of russian extraction see Russia's ideals (i.e. nationalism) as dangerous.

>>34216447
Because you need an enemy to keep military spending going and population's mind occupied. Look on Sweden. Few days before budget hearing - RUSSIAN SUBMARINE IN OUR WATERS. Few days of searching, nothing was found, late they say that it was a mistake but hey - they did increase military budget.

>>34216447
>Why do we still consider Russia our "totally not enemies but enemies" again?
Because russia does starts shitty proxy wars in countries that don't need one

>>34215912
I feel like Northern Ireland would get wiped out in the second round as there are loads of empty army bases and airfields and docks that would get quickly filled once the English bases are wiped out. Northern Ireland played quite a large naval role in the second world war.

Hey Oppenheimer, in case you show up here, or anyone else who knows their shit real well, what kind of automation (if any) do the Russians/Americans/French/British have in the way of launching nuclear weaponry? I'm under the impression that nothing can be launched without direct human action.

>>34218461
everything has safeguards in it so nukes don't get inadvertantly launched or launched by a single party.

>>34218357
Probably not.

>>34218461
The US can launch ICBMs remotely, it is known that the Russians can as well.

There is no automatic dead hand system.