[Roundy]

Seriously though, has anybody here ever actually seen a nuclear bomb?

[DuncanDoenitz]

As a former RAF nuclear bomber technician, yes, I've seen nuclear bombs.  They are pointy at one end, and have fins at the blunt end.  Fortunately, I've never seen a nuclear explosion, however. 

I've also seen conventional high explosive bombs.  They are also pointy at one end, fins, etc.  Unfortunately I've never seen one of those explode either, but have spoken to friends who have seen them explode.   

I've also seen air-to-air missiles.  They are kind of bomb-shaped (pointy, fins etc), but much, much thinner.  Fortunately, I HAVE seen missiles fire and explode. 

On the basis that I have witnessed the function of missiles, been assured of the function of conventional bombs, and personally seen nuclear bombs, I have every reason to believe that they will explode in a nuclear manner as described in the brochure, should we decide to smite our enemies in such a manner. 

[AATW]

As a former RAF nuclear bomber technician, yes, I've seen nuclear bombs.  They are pointy at one end, and have fins at the blunt end.

Well if that’s not enough to satisfy Rushy then I don’t know what is.

[Action80]

Seriously though, has anybody here ever actually seen a nuclear bomb?

Of course not.

[Kokorikos]

I think that the reason why evil governments do not use nuclear weapons is the same reason for which they do not use "at least one crate of TNT".

[Rushy]

There's a reason for that...

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) – UNODA
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) prohibits “any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion” anywhere in the world. The treaty was opened for signature in September 1996, and has been signed by 186 nations and ratified by 176.

Oh geez, my bad! I didn't realize countries must obey treaties like they are laws of physics! Someone better tell Russia they signed a treaty saying they wouldn't invade Ukraine, they must have forgotten!

As a former RAF nuclear bomber technician, yes, I've seen nuclear bombs.  They are pointy at one end, and have fins at the blunt end.  Fortunately, I've never seen a nuclear explosion, however. 

I've also seen conventional high explosive bombs.  They are also pointy at one end, fins, etc.  Unfortunately I've never seen one of those explode either, but have spoken to friends who have seen them explode.   

I've also seen air-to-air missiles.  They are kind of bomb-shaped (pointy, fins etc), but much, much thinner.  Fortunately, I HAVE seen missiles fire and explode. 

On the basis that I have witnessed the function of missiles, been assured of the function of conventional bombs, and personally seen nuclear bombs, I have every reason to believe that they will explode in a nuclear manner as described in the brochure, should we decide to smite our enemies in such a manner. 

Totally, my dude. I've seen nuclear bombs too. They're super scary and very real. You see, what you really saw was just a big bomb-shaped object and was told it was nuclear. The military enjoys lying to people, especially their own people.

I think that the reason why evil governments do not use nuclear weapons is the same reason for which they do not use "at least one crate of TNT".

I'd imagine most conventional weapons used in warfare are equivalent to one or more crates of TNT.

As a former RAF nuclear bomber technician, yes, I've seen nuclear bombs.  They are pointy at one end, and have fins at the blunt end.

Well if that’s not enough to satisfy Rushy then I don’t know what is.

If random nobodies saying they "totally saw a nuclear bomb" was enough to convince me then I'd believe quite literally anything. I'd be more likely to believe a man saying he saw aliens. What Duncan said was the equivalent of "I saw aliens" except what he saw was a box that said "aliens inside" on it. It's sad.

Seriously though, has anybody here ever actually seen a nuclear bomb?

Notice that the best anyone can do is say they saw a regular looking bomb except it was labeled as the scary do-not-actually-use version.

[RonJ]

So, what are your proof standards?  Just what exactly would you have to see in order for you to be convinced that nuclear bombs actually exist? 

[stack]

There's a reason for that...

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) – UNODA
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) prohibits “any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion” anywhere in the world. The treaty was opened for signature in September 1996, and has been signed by 186 nations and ratified by 176.

Oh geez, my bad! I didn't realize countries must obey treaties like they are laws of physics! Someone better tell Russia they signed a treaty saying they wouldn't invade Ukraine, they must have forgotten!

Nice strawman.

You wrote: "Funny how as the world modernized, the tests started being run underground, then they started being run not at all."

Like it was some mystery that testing stopped which somehow must mean that nukes don't exist. When in fact, there is no mystery.  Whether nations abide by the treaties is neither here nor there. The point is, the treaties are what stopped testing...So far...

[AATW]

What Duncan said was the equivalent of "I saw aliens" except what he saw was a box that said "aliens inside" on it.

No. That's a false equivalence.

Because aliens don't exist. Or not in a "little green man" kind, who regularly visits earth and could conceivably be found in a box. So him claiming to see one would not be credible and would require some compelling evidence.

What Duncan said was the equivalent of "I went to the zoo and saw a kangaroo", or to continue your line of nonsense, he actually only saw the enclosure because they were out sleeping in the back. But kangaroos exist, and they can often be seen in zoos. So that statement is perfectly credible in the context of the circumstances described. If he said he saw one in the street then if that street was in the US or UK then, again, that would seem less likely.

You're trying to pretend he's saying that he went to the zoo and saw a unicorn. That is not credible because unicorns don't exist.
But kangaroos do, as do nuclear weapons. So seeing one is perfectly credible in the right circumstances.

You have provided no evidence for any of your assertions so all you're left with is an argument from incredulity.
As Roundy said, this is clearly a CN thread.

[Kokorikos]

I think that the reason why evil governments do not use nuclear weapons is the same reason for which they do not use "at least one crate of TNT".

I'd imagine most conventional weapons used in warfare are equivalent to one or more crates of TNT.

Whatever weapons were used in the video that Stack posted (or anywhere where we've seen a huge mushroom cloud forming) were obviously very destructive, but we do not see them being used in modern conflicts.
 
You said that it was TNT so I assume (correct me if I am wrong) that you accept that the videos of mushroom clouds are real. You just don't believe that they were caused by nuclear weapons.

They were caused by some kind of weapon, though, which should still be available to governments. For whatever reason, it is clear that governments are not willing to resort to the use of such destructive force as otherwise they would already have done so.

My point is that the fact that nuclear weapons are not used today is not proof that they do not exist unless you also do not accept that the videos of the mushroom clouds are real.

[Алёна]

I think that the reason why evil governments do not use nuclear weapons is the same reason for which they do not use "at least one crate of TNT".

I'd imagine most conventional weapons used in warfare are equivalent to one or more crates of TNT.

Whatever weapons were used in the video that Stack posted (or anywhere where we've seen a huge mushroom cloud forming) were obviously very destructive, but we do not see them being used in modern conflicts.
 
You said that it was TNT so I assume (correct me if I am wrong) that you accept that the videos of mushroom clouds are real. You just don't believe that they were caused by nuclear weapons.

They were caused by some kind of weapon, though, which should still be available to governments. For whatever reason, it is clear that governments are not willing to resort to the use of such destructive force as otherwise they would already have done so.

My point is that the fact that nuclear weapons are not used today is not proof that they do not exist unless you also do not accept that the videos of the mushroom clouds are real.

Nukes are used underground for mining operations. Although aerial use of them above ground is rarely used anymore.
That doesn't mean that above ground nukes DON'T happen.

[Kokorikos]

I never claimed that they don't happen.

[Алёна]

I never claimed that they don't happen.

Me neither, I never claimed anything in fact.
All I'm saying is what I know about atom bombs, nukes, and hydrogen bombs.

[Rushy]

Nice strawman.

You wrote: "Funny how as the world modernized, the tests started being run underground, then they started being run not at all."

Like it was some mystery that testing stopped which somehow must mean that nukes don't exist. When in fact, there is no mystery.  Whether nations abide by the treaties is neither here nor there. The point is, the treaties are what stopped testing...So far...

It's not a strawman, it's pointing out that treaties are meaningless. The tests stopped because governments knew it's too difficult to lie about them in $current_year. They are better off just saying "noooo we don't test anything anymore". Treaties don't mean anything to anyone and bringing them up is quite frankly hilarious.

What Duncan said was the equivalent of "I went to the zoo and saw a kangaroo", or to continue your line of nonsense, he actually only saw the enclosure because they were out sleeping in the back.

It's more like an enclosure marked "kangaroos" in a zoo, but doesn't contain any, never does, and no zoos anywhere ever seem to have them (despite you searching for them repeatedly!). Surely you'd think something is going on?

So, what are your proof standards?  Just what exactly would you have to see in order for you to be convinced that nuclear bombs actually exist? 

What are yours? You lads need to learn you can't ask me to prove something doesn't exist (that's not possible). You're going about this all wrong. You must provide proof it exists, not the other way around.

They were caused by some kind of weapon, though, which should still be available to governments. For whatever reason, it is clear that governments are not willing to resort to the use of such destructive force as otherwise they would already have done so.

My point is that the fact that nuclear weapons are not used today is not proof that they do not exist unless you also do not accept that the videos of the mushroom clouds are real.

The point is that the mushroom clouds in those videos weren't caused by a relatively small, easily portable device. Those were scare tactics and propaganda videos from many decades ago. We wanted to scare the Soviets out of advancing further into Europe and it worked. The end.

Have you seen a MOAB before? It's a really big conventional bomb likened to a "mini-nuke". America used one of them in Iraq. It has (according to wikipedia) a blast of 11 tons of TNT. Here's where it gets interesting: supposedly America has tactical nukes of equivalent yield that could have been used in its place. Why not? They are more portable, more energy efficient, hell, they're even cheaper! Why not use them? If the answer is "radiation", well then, how much radiation does a small tactical nuclear bomb actually give off? If radiation is such a big deal, why do the armed forces continue to use depleted uranium shells?

The supposed reasoning for decisions of the military to not use nuclear weapons and their actual behavior do not line up.

[Алёна]

"We wanted to scare the soviets out of advancing further into Europe."
Actually, when they heard that Ronald Reagan was shot, they started advancing from Ukraine to try and takeover west Europe.
They only retreated when they heard Ronald was alive.

[RonJ]

So, what are your proof standards?  Just what exactly would you have to see in order for you to be convinced that nuclear bombs actually exist? 

What are yours? You lads need to learn you can't ask me to prove something doesn't exist (that's not possible). You're going about this all wrong. You must provide proof it exists, not the other way around.

You misunderstand, as usual.  What do I have to show you in order for you to believe in a nuclear weapon?  It's like getting into a taxi and the driver saying 'where to'.  You then say 'just drive, I'll tell you when we arrive'.  That's fine as long as you are paying for every mile driven, but it wouldn't work if the ride is free.  I'm asking you what kind of evidence would you require in order for you to believe in a nuclear weapon?  I'll do the proving if you tell me what you need. 

[Rushy]

So, what are your proof standards?  Just what exactly would you have to see in order for you to be convinced that nuclear bombs actually exist? 

What are yours? You lads need to learn you can't ask me to prove something doesn't exist (that's not possible). You're going about this all wrong. You must provide proof it exists, not the other way around.

You misunderstand, as usual.  What do I have to show you in order for you to believe in a nuclear weapon?  It's like getting into a taxi and the driver saying 'where to'.  You then say 'just drive, I'll tell you when we arrive'.  That's fine as long as you are paying for every mile driven, but it wouldn't work if the ride is free.  I'm asking you what kind of evidence would you require in order for you to believe in a nuclear weapon?  I'll do the proving if you tell me what you need.

I would need to see, either in person or an adequate video, actually showing the internals of the device, showing that it's obviously not faked using a large amount of conventional explosive, and then actually detonated. The video of course would need to be devoid of jumpcut editing where they go "here see this is totally it, this is totally what explodes!" and then it suddenly jumps to an explosion as if that's the device that was used.

[Алёна]

Closest thing I found, Rushy.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

Do you believe nuclear power plants are real?

[Roundy]

Do you believe nuclear power plants are real?

Can you prove they're not just burning clean coal?