Will nuclear weapons ever be used again?

I think it's a question of when, not if... I just wonder what the context will be

Attached: My body.gif (803x1078, 521K)

Other urls found in this thread:

xvideos.com/video44092935/big_lenny
youtube.com/watch?v=D-FimlTyYnA
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
911history.de/aaannxyz_ch01_en.html#autoid894915/
youtube.com/watch?v=Id9c5PiJ9KY
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Nuclear weapons do not exist, and never have.

Attached: serveimage.jpg (2560x1920, 591K)

trips will decide

I both hope you are wrong and hope london goes first.

oh god, i hope so. could you imagine? has to be atleast three or four days of work getting canceled

redpilled

> does not know about WTC

Attached: South_Tower_Collapse_video_animation.gif (1035x828, 1.61M)

xvideos.com/video44092935/big_lenny

youtube.com/watch?v=D-FimlTyYnA
scintillation at 1:52

A new generation of highly accurate, low yield weapons increases the likely hood of them being used. Little or no fallout, surgical strikes. It also increases fear in near peer competitors of a regime ending first strike.

surely one day some nignog country will push it too far and get what they deserve and nobody will mind

Attached: creamy.jpg (866x1390, 119K)

Unfortunately yes, and it's the reason im blackpilled about the future. If the jews leveled Germany for fighting against them and that was 80 years ago... imagine now
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

Attached: 1548930408352.png (1000x1200, 1.01M)

That area you refer to will be everything outside the chosen area.

>tfw same body + 10kg and wider shoulders
I want to throw up when I see myself shirtless.

No. Ayys are disabling nukes. Jews would use them many times already if that was not the case.
We will have to slaughter eachother by hand.

>having a job

Keep feeding the jew, kid

NEW ORDER OF BARBARIANS HAS SOMETHING ABOUT IT

Acceptance of the U.N [54] . at that time was seen as not being as wide as was hoped. Efforts would continue to give the United Nations increasing importance. People would be more and more used to the idea of relinquishing some national sovereignty. Economic interdependence would foster this goal from a peaceful standpoint.

Avoidance of war would foster it from the standpoint of worrying about hostilities. It was recognized that doing it peaceably was better than doing it by war. It was stated at this point that war was "obsolete." I thought that was an interesting phrase because obsolete means something that once was seen as useful is no longer useful. But war is obsolete ... this being because of the nuclear bombs war is no longer controllable. Formerly wars could be controlled, but if nuclear weapons would fall into the wrong hands there could be an unintended nuclear disaster. It was not stated who the "wrong hands" are. We were free to infer that maybe this meant terrorists, but in more recent years I'm wondering whether the wrong hands might also include people that we've assumed that they've had nuclear weapons all along ... maybe they don't have them. Just as it was stated that industry would be preserved in the United States - a little bit just in case the world wide plans didn't work out; just in case some country or some other powerful person decided to bolt from the pack and go his own way, one wonders whether this might also be true with nuclear weapons. When you hear that ... he said they might fall into the wrong hands, there was some statement that the possession of nuclear weapons had been tightly controlled, sort of implying that anybody who had nuclear weapons was intended to have them. That would necessarily have included the Soviet Union, if indeed they have them.

But I recall wondering at the time, "Are you telling us, or are you implying that this country willingly gave weapons to the Soviets?." At that time that seemed like a terribly unthinkable thing to do, much less to admit. The leaders of the Soviet Union seem to be so dependent on the West though, one wonders whether there may have been some fear that they would try to assert independence if they indeed had these weapons. So, I don't know. It's something to speculate about perhaps ... Who did he mean when he said, "If these weapons fall into the wrong hands"? Maybe just terrorists. Anyhow, the new system would be brought in, if not by peaceful cooperation - everybody willingly yielding national sovereignty - then by bringing the nation to the brink of nuclear war. And everybody would be so fearful as hysteria is created by the possibility of nuclear war that there would be a strong public outcry to negotiate a public peace and people would willingly give up national sovereignty in order to achieve peace, and thereby this would bring in the New International Political System. This was stated and very impressive thing to hear then ... "If there were too many people in the right places who resisted this, there might be a need to use one or two - possibly more - nuclear weapons. As it was put this would be possibly needed to convince people that "We mean business." That was followed by the statement that, "By the time one or two of those went off then everybody - even the most reluctant - would yield." He said something about "this negotiated peace would be very convincing", as kind of in a framework or in a context that the whole thing was rehearsed but nobody would know it. People hearing about it would be convinced that it was a genuine negotiation between hostile enemies who finally had come to the realization that peace was better than war.

what am I seeing here doc?

911history.de/aaannxyz_ch01_en.html#autoid894915/

>doesnt know they nuked the coast of Fukishima

The all out nuclear exchange happens after some chair force jack ass forgets to dial his bomb down in a "surgical strike"

youtube.com/watch?v=Id9c5PiJ9KY