/b/ - Random

Nukes don't exist it's all faked

What are you exactly afraid of? Effects will vary highly depending on where you live if they were to be used, though odds of nuclear weapons use are extremely slim.

>>254818
I dont know the specifics of the nukes are fake conspiracy theory but I think even if nukes are fake there are probably other weapons that can rain fire from the sky and wipe everyone out.

>>254818
I heard about this aswell. From what I read and what makes sense for me:
>People still live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki so the radiation from the bombs does not last long or is not super strong. This is not the case for nuclear reactor accidents apparantly.
>Many military experts say nuclear bombs are actually a waste of money and resources and regular or modern warfare (drones and so on) are more practical

So to summon it up: Nukes are most likely not going to kill you, but there are still enough scenarios to be afraid about. But to live in fear of something out of your control will just steal your time and nerves.

A nuke dropping is the ideal death. You'd be alive and clueless one minute, then it'd all be gone in the next. Pretty blissful teebeeaytch

Not worried about direct blasts obv, but am worried about nuclear winters, radiation poisoning, total anarchy, and everything else that would come after the fact.

>>254928
Nuclear winters are most likely Soviet hoaxes, several defectors post 1990 have claimed that the original papers are a hoax.
Radiation poisoning risk is minor in modern times unless done on purpose, modern airburst weapons are very clean.
Failure of infrastructure is the actual problem, but odds of nuclear weapons use are very very low. Biggest risk is India and Pakistan, and that'd be a limited regional exchange.

No. Because if we get killed by them you’ll die soon enough that it won’t even hurt or matter.

>>254805
who told you people that death by nukes doesn't hurt

>>254926
Depends on how close you are to it. The further away, the more agonizing the death would be.

>>254945
>>254926
This is all cope btw made up by government to ease you into the idea of death

>>254910
This too

>>254926
>>254971
If you die in the blast instantly, sure. But what if you don't? Do you think the crops will be flourishing when they're radiated and half the people who know how to tend them are dead? Do you think that hospitals are going to be equipped to deal with radiation sickness, injuries from shrapnel or buildings collapsing in the blast, and shock? What if you get a regular disease on top of that? Or sepsis from a minor wound you decided would be too much bother to seek treatment for? If nuclear war actually occurred and you survived, you would be slowly and painfully starving to death, likely with the knowledge that most of your friends and family are dead and the next generation will likely be riddled with disabilities and intellectual impairments, if they're born at all.
The video I meant to attach to this won't attach, but anyone who feels flippantly about nuclear war, please watch Threads (1984)

>>255006
no its not, the entire world nuclear arsenal has a smaller tnt yield than a head on collision with an asteroid (if the asteroid has a width length height of football field)

>>255030
That doesn't mean it's not going to be painful to die or that it won't hit you, or that the radiation level will be so high even the unaffected areas will be unlivable