Towards a nuclear weapon free world.

[Dave]

75 years on since first recorded use, I think the world is coming to
conclusion that using nuclear weapons is a bad idea.

I'm not saying that killing thousands at a time is a bad thing - who am
I to judge? However the long term effects are wrong, and after looking
at the Beruit explosion, and doing a simple sum or two using a pure
kinetic weapon is a practical alternative.

130-200 tonnes at 18,000 mph or more in the right place would be like a
little meteorite strike of several kilotons, and there are now rockets
capable of this kind of payload. I'm not sure about accuracy, maybe
something for the engineers to work on. I don't think burn up should be
an issue, since there at that kind of speed there should only be a few
milliseconds in the atmosphere.

[Basil Jet]

Post by Dave
75 years on since first recorded use, I think the world is coming to
conclusion that using nuclear weapons is a bad idea.
I'm not saying that killing thousands at a time is a bad thing - who am
I to judge?  However the long term effects are wrong, and after looking
at the Beruit explosion, and doing a simple sum or two using a pure
kinetic weapon is a practical alternative.
130-200 tonnes at 18,000 mph or more in the right place would be like a
little meteorite strike of several kilotons, and there are now rockets
capable of this kind of payload.  I'm not sure about accuracy, maybe
something for the engineers to work on.  I don't think burn up should be
an issue, since there at that kind of speed there should only be a few
milliseconds in the atmosphere.

I can't see conventional weapons creating a crater to destroy a bunker
the way a nuke can.

[j***@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Post by Basil Jet

Post by Dave
75 years on since first recorded use, I think the world is coming to
conclusion that using nuclear weapons is a bad idea.
I'm not saying that killing thousands at a time is a bad thing - who am
I to judge?  However the long term effects are wrong, and after looking
at the Beruit explosion, and doing a simple sum or two using a pure
kinetic weapon is a practical alternative.
130-200 tonnes at 18,000 mph or more in the right place would be like a
little meteorite strike of several kilotons, and there are now rockets
capable of this kind of payload.  I'm not sure about accuracy, maybe
something for the engineers to work on.  I don't think burn up should be
an issue, since there at that kind of speed there should only be a few
milliseconds in the atmosphere.

I can't see conventional weapons creating a crater to destroy a bunker
the way a nuke can.

Non sequitur.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunker_buster

Bunker busters have been around since WWII and some are purely kinetic.

[Basil Jet]

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com

Post by Basil Jet

Post by Dave
75 years on since first recorded use, I think the world is coming to
conclusion that using nuclear weapons is a bad idea.
I'm not saying that killing thousands at a time is a bad thing - who am
I to judge?  However the long term effects are wrong, and after looking
at the Beruit explosion, and doing a simple sum or two using a pure
kinetic weapon is a practical alternative.
130-200 tonnes at 18,000 mph or more in the right place would be like a
little meteorite strike of several kilotons, and there are now rockets
capable of this kind of payload.  I'm not sure about accuracy, maybe
something for the engineers to work on.  I don't think burn up should be
an issue, since there at that kind of speed there should only be a few
milliseconds in the atmosphere.

I can't see conventional weapons creating a crater to destroy a bunker
the way a nuke can.

Non sequitur.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunker_buster
Bunker busters have been around since WWII and some are purely kinetic.

Thanks, I learnt something.

[Carmine Morales-Vazquez]

Post by Basil Jet

Post by j***@specsol.spam.sux.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunker_buster
Bunker busters have been around since WWII and some are purely kinetic.

Thanks, I learnt something.

If you are buying into, letting them testing for the fictitious flu, go
ahead and bend over, let them do rest of the job.

They are wearing a complete hazmat suit, because those testing swabs are
already contaminated with nano-crap, they call "viruses". You idiots. I
can't believe you people are so idiots.

Just let a complete stranger, *_in hazmat suit_*, shove god knows what UP
IN YOUR NOSE. You retards.

Nasal Swab Testing Insanity – DON’T DO IT!
https://www.bitchute.com/video/qw9vw7FNUOYz/

"trust the plan", 2021 is gonna be a great year.

*_Wearing a mask is already increasing infertility_*, without the bill
gates vaccines. Because you are blind, you can't see. You idiots are so
stupid, not believing your lying eyes. You can see, but you are blind.

Also, it requires a "covid" vaccine, taking your kids out from quarantine
schools. Who wouldn't take that crippling vaccine, for the sake of own
children. Many, many levels of hell in this "corona" fascist capitalist
big pharma bourgeoisie takeover.

Do NOT Send Your Children Back To School
https://www.bitchute.com/video/qWgWCVzQCAf1

[Heriberto Oberlander]

Post by Basil Jet
I can't see conventional weapons creating a crater to destroy a bunker
the way a nuke can.

Non sequitur. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunker_buster
Bunker busters have been around since WWII and some are purely kinetic.

more proofs for the ongoing earth mass depopulation

Sadistic live "corona test", 28 seconds
https://www.bitchute.com/video/NRnANxGVC9yd/

[Basil Jet]

Post by Dave
75 years on since first recorded use, I think the world is coming to
conclusion that using nuclear weapons is a bad idea.

I just noticed that Nagasaki Airport has NAGASAKI written on it so that
it can be read from the sky - in English! If there's one place on Earth
that wouldn't want to be identified by English speakers in planes, you'd
think it would be Nagasaki.

Loading Image...