In this thread, we debate whether nuclear bombs actually exi

>>136980146
>hiroshima
>nagasaki
Not a debate.
are you daft?

>>136980289
>firebombed cities
>nuclear bombs
Pick one

>>136980146
They exist but can have their atoms deactivated so don't worry about it.

>>136980420
Prove that they don't. There's more evidence showing that they do exist.

>>136980289

Where is the evidence that the damage done to those cities was the result of a single nuclear bomb?

Does it not seem strange to you that no such event has taken place since? What with thousands of nuclear weapons in the world, you would think that an accident would have happened by now, would you not?

why wouldn't they?

>>136980620
Are you stupid?

>>136980554

We know that what we were told about the Holocaust is nonsense. We know that an enormous amount of what we hear of World War Two is manufactured propaganda. Is it not more plausible that nuclear bombs are simply another manifestation of the same impulse that gave rise to the lampshade made out of human skin and the shrunken head.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cYaonpIGYk&list=PL9214BB79AFF288E1

>>136980803
>Is it not more plausible that nuclear bombs are simply another manifestation

NO, because there is evidence to support that a nuclear bomb WAS dropped, why do you think they had generations of people with mutations that clearly come from radiation

so do you disbelieve that nuclear weapons have been made, or disbelieve that they can be made at all?

File: Atomic bomb 7.webm (510KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

510KB, 1280x720px

How do you make this effect?

>>136981216

There's a lot of popular nonsense about the effects of radiation, as exemplified for example in the case of Chernobyl, where the environment is now in a flourishing state.

>>136980146
is the earth round anon?

>>136983006
It's flourishing because there are no humans there to fuck it up.

You mean to tell me youd gladly stand next to a blue glowing plutonium rod fresh out of a reactor?

>>136984110

Cancer rates are much lower among people who have been mildly exposed to radiation than among those who have had no exposure to it at all. As I say, the science about radiation is heavily intertwined with popular myths about its alleged harmfulness.

if you think nukes are fake you are an idiot

>>136980146
Eddie bravo ladies and gents

>>136984405
Gonna need a source there buddy. That's a fairly bold assertion.

>>136985694

This article provides an overview of a good deal of the data.

http://www.yourhealthbase.com/radiation_and_cancer_risk.htm

>>136980146
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWSMoE3A5DI