[Rushy]

Imagine my surprise that you provide no evidence for that assertion.
(If you are imagining no surprise at all then you are correctly imagining how much surprise I felt)

I'm the one asserting there's no evidence of something, you're the one saying you have evidence of it (that you obviously cannot provide).

Me: nuclear bombs don't exist
You: you can't prove that they don't!!!!!!

This sort of argumentation style was seen as illogical by the Greeks a couple thousand years ago. Please stop keeping it on life support.

And yet the claimed nuclear test sites are still radioactive because of the bombs. So, which truth is it?

Some are, some aren't. Depends on the type of test, whether it was above ground or below, how powerful the bomb was.
It's almost like you don't understand that different types of radiation have different half lives and that different tests produce different types and amounts of radiation.
Again, this stuff doesn't take long to look up.

"the qualities of my delusion magically change as the narrative requires!" I see, truly fascinating. Tell me more about your expansive knowledge of nuclear physics and what the half-life values of various elements are. Please, get into excruciating detail. Don't be shy, stop trying to offload this with a "do your own research" gag. It's almost as if you don't actually know what you're talking about (and you're wrong, to boot!).

[RonJ]

Imagine my surprise that you provide no evidence for that assertion.
(If you are imagining no surprise at all then you are correctly imagining how much surprise I felt)

I'm the one asserting there's no evidence of something, you're the one saying you have evidence of it (that you obviously cannot provide).

Me: nuclear bombs don't exist
You: you can't prove that they don't!!!!!!

The Japanese can!

[Clyde Frog]

I'm the one asserting there's no evidence of something, you're the one saying you have evidence of it (that you obviously cannot provide).

You also asserted "modern thermonuclear fusion weapons supposedly don't have any radioactive fallout". Citation?

[RonJ]

Don't believe in radioactive fallout?  Consult the federal governments 'atomic veterans' program.  Check out Bikini Atoll and Enewetak Atoll.  I've personally had eyes on these locations and could even be eligable for compensation if I ever get cancer in the future.  If there's been no atomic bombs or radioactive fallout then there's lots of BS floating around out there.  How about that for evidence?

[Rushy]

I'm the one asserting there's no evidence of something, you're the one saying you have evidence of it (that you obviously cannot provide).

You also asserted "modern thermonuclear fusion weapons supposedly don't have any radioactive fallout". Citation?

"Fusion, unlike fission, is relatively "clean"—it releases energy but no harmful radioactive products or large amounts of nuclear fallout."

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

I suppose it comes down to what you may consider a "large amount". It's all made up concepts, anyway, as I've said before, none of these designs are real.

Don't believe in radioactive fallout?  Consult the federal governments 'atomic veterans' program.  Check out Bikini Atoll and Enewetak Atoll.  I've personally had eyes on these locations and could even be eligable for compensation if I ever get cancer in the future.  If there's been no atomic bombs or radioactive fallout then there's lots of BS floating around out there.  How about that for evidence?

Nukes don't need to exist to make locations radioactive, unless you also think getting cancer from Chernobyl is evidence of nuclear bombs.

[RonJ]

I'm the one asserting there's no evidence of something, you're the one saying you have evidence of it (that you obviously cannot provide).

You also asserted "modern thermonuclear fusion weapons supposedly don't have any radioactive fallout". Citation?

"Fusion, unlike fission, is relatively "clean"—it releases energy but no harmful radioactive products or large amounts of nuclear fallout."

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

I suppose it comes down to what you may consider a "large amount". It's all made up concepts, anyway, as I've said before, none of these designs are real.

Don't believe in radioactive fallout?  Consult the federal governments 'atomic veterans' program.  Check out Bikini Atoll and Enewetak Atoll.  I've personally had eyes on these locations and could even be eligable for compensation if I ever get cancer in the future.  If there's been no atomic bombs or radioactive fallout then there's lots of BS floating around out there.  How about that for evidence?

Nukes don't need to exist to make locations radioactive, unless you also think getting cancer from Chernobyl is evidence of nuclear bombs.

If you are going to claim that nukes are 'fake' then you will have to starting calling a lot of people 'lying sacks of shit'.  I'm one of them. This isn't something that happens in space.  YOU can see the evidence of what happens during a nuclear blast yourself because it still exists on planet earth.  I've been to these locations as have countless others.  You can go to and see for yourself.   

[Rushy]

If you are going to claim that nukes are 'fake' then you will have to starting calling a lot of people 'lying sacks of shit'.  I'm one of them. This isn't something that happens in space. 

I don't think you're a liar, Ron, I just think you haven't thought about the possible explanations. I think you've been lied to by other people over a very long time. Don't act so incredulous in defense of their lies.

YOU can see the evidence of what happens during a nuclear blast yourself because it still exists on planet earth.  I've been to these locations as have countless others.  You can go to and see for yourself.

All you can show evidence of is that a location had some large blast occur and there's some residual radioactivity. That's not evidence that a nuclear bomb exists. I can buy some radioactive element, shove it into a firecracker and pop it in a local park. Is that evidence I set off a mini-nuke?

[RonJ]

If you are going to claim that nukes are 'fake' then you will have to starting calling a lot of people 'lying sacks of shit'.  I'm one of them. This isn't something that happens in space. 

All you can show evidence of is that a location had some large blast occur and there's some residual radioactivity. That's not evidence that a nuclear bomb exists. I can buy some radioactive element, shove it into a firecracker and pop it in a local park. Is that evidence I set off a mini-nuke?

You don't have any 'evidence standards' for what a nuclear device is or isn't do you?  How can you possibly claim that what I've seen is false and I've been 'lied to'?  Gas lighting just doesn't work with me.  Why don't you go to Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and start your spew.  People there probably need your kind of psychological help.

[Clyde Frog]

I'm the one asserting there's no evidence of something, you're the one saying you have evidence of it (that you obviously cannot provide).

You also asserted "modern thermonuclear fusion weapons supposedly don't have any radioactive fallout". Citation?

"Fusion, unlike fission, is relatively "clean"—it releases energy but no harmful radioactive products or large amounts of nuclear fallout."

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

I suppose it comes down to what you may consider a "large amount". It's all made up concepts, anyway, as I've said before, none of these designs are real.

So you don't actually know how modern thermonuclear weapons work, then? Perhaps this infographic from the very same wikipedia article you obviously read will be helpful to revisit?

[stack]

And yet the claimed nuclear test sites are still radioactive because of the bombs. So, which truth is it? Radioactive fallout lasts a long time or mysteriously vanishes in a short time with simple cleanup? It's almost like people are making things up as they go and can't get their propaganda straight!

1945: 1 Nagasaki
1945: 1 Hiroshima
Total: 2

Between 1946 and 1958, there were 23 nuclear devices detonated at various spots on, within, above, or beneath Bikini Atoll.
Between 1951 and 1992 a total of 928 nuclear tests were conducted at the NTS (Nevada), 828 of which were underground.
Total: 951

- Hiroshima bomb 15 kilotons TNT equivalent
- Nagasaki bomb 25 kilotons TNT equivalent
- By end of 1962 the total of all atmospheric tests had risen from the 1951 value of 0.6 million tonnes of TNT equivalent to about 500 million tonnes equivalent.

[markjo]

This thread has to be a troll. At best it’s an argument from incredulity, which is no argument at all.

Of course it's a troll thread.  But since Rushy is a mod, no one will move this thread to AR or CN where it belongs.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

So, the only proof you would accept for the existence nuclear weapons is for you to be involved in a nuclear blast.

Your line of reasoning in this thread could be applied to anything. Take the title of the thread and replace the words 'nuclear weapons' with any other words.

Have you ever seen Australia? Or maybe a manta ray? Does uranium exist? Have you ever actually handled uranium? What about a directed energy weapon? Certainly the fake existence of large sea going mammals called whales is part of a liberal conspiracy. It's all photoshopped bullshit.

It's a good thing we have you here to explain what's real and what's not.

This thread is rife with troll stink!!
We all belong in CN!!!
Throw us in the pit!!!

[Алёна]

Before:

After:

[AATW]

I'm the one asserting there's no evidence of something, you're the one saying you have evidence of it (that you obviously cannot provide).

I have provided some, as have others.
There's 25,000 tons of evidence they exist. They have been used in warfare within living memory (just).
There have been lots of tests of other, more powerful weapons since.
A lot of this is on film and there is a radiation impact of these weapons, not to mention a power, which is not found in conventional weapons.
You are simply dismissing it all as fake. You can do that about anything.

Kangaroos don't exist.
Tell me you've seen one, I'll call you a liar.
Show me a photo or film of one, I'll tell you it's CGI.
Take me to the zoo to see one, I'll say it's an animatronic.

See? Easy to believe, or not believe, whatever you like if you only accept evidence which confirms to your world view and dismiss as fake anything which does not. All you're left with is an argument from incredulity.

You assert without evidence that the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was "just firebombing".
I'm interested how you think that would have worked given Little Boy was dropped from a single plane and had the equivalent power of 25,000 tons of TNT.
And when I point out that a lot of people died or got ill from radiation poisoning, not something you'd expect from "firebombing", you just say that had nuclear weapons been used then the cities would be "radioactive wastelands".
It would have taken you 5 minutes to look that up and find out about half lives, how radioactive material was removed during rebuilding and how different types of bombs emit different types of radioactive material.

Me: nuclear bombs don't exist
You: you can't prove that they don't!!!!!!

That isn't how this conversation has gone. It's gone:

You: "Nuclear bombs don't exist"
Everyone: "What the utter shit are you talking about? They dropped 2 in WWII"
You: "Nuh-uh! That was just firebombing"
Everyone: "Citation needed... And there was a shit load of nuclear tests after that. Here's some film of people watching one"
You: "Faaaake! That's just TNT"
Me: "Citation needed...  And what about all the people who got ill or died from the radiation?"
You: "Aha! Then why doesn't Hiroshima glow in the dark. Gotcha!!"
Me: " That really isn't how this works, just look it up."

I'm not asking you to prove that Nuclear weapons don't exist. But you do have to show some evidence to back up your assertions. All you've done right now is made a load of claims without providing any evidence for them. You've dismissed all evidence shown to you as fake. Your entire argument is "Nuclear weapons don't exist and my evidence for that is I don't believe they do. All evidence for nuclear weapons is fake or propaganda".

Compelling...

[Rushy]

You don't have any 'evidence standards' for what a nuclear device is or isn't do you?  How can you possibly claim that what I've seen is false and I've been 'lied to'?  Gas lighting just doesn't work with me.  Why don't you go to Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and start your spew.  People there probably need your kind of psychological help.

I'm sure you draw all of this knowledge from your enormous understanding of nuclear devices... You're just repeating what you've been told your entire life. "No! People can't lie to me! I am lie proof!"

So, the only proof you would accept for the existence nuclear weapons is for you to be involved in a nuclear blast.

It seems for you to believe they exist no one needs to provide you anything at all.

Your line of reasoning in this thread could be applied to anything. Take the title of the thread and replace the words 'nuclear weapons' with any other words.

That's true, there are many other things the government lies about as well. Remember that time America went to war with an entire country just a little over a decade ago over Weapons Of Mass Destruction that turned out to not exist? I'm sure you would argue that they do, we just can't provide evidence of it or find them in any way. It sounds like you love to believe in things no one can prove!

Have you ever seen Australia? Or maybe a manta ray? Does uranium exist? Have you ever actually handled uranium? What about a directed energy weapon? Certainly the fake existence of large sea going mammals called whales is part of a liberal conspiracy. It's all photoshopped bullshit.

Yes to all of these except seeing Australia. I'm not entirely convinced Australia exists, but that's beside the current topic. Is this the best you can do? Make assumptions about me personally? Also, funny that you say "liberal conspiracy". You'll find most regulars here aren't politically to the right (if you're using the American version of "liberal", you might not be!). Regardless, even if you're using the more open minded version of "liberal", it's telling that your brain operates entirely on "my side vs their side" philosophy. Americans can't help to bring up politics in everything they do because they have been trained to think of politics as a sports team.

It's a good thing we have you here to explain what's real and what's not.

I'm just pointing out that a lot of people take something being "real" for granted without questioning it or thinking about it. No one here seems to be able to prove something is real despite constantly saying it is so. It's a running theme with RE'ers.

All you've done right now is made a load of claims without providing any evidence for them.

Ironic.

And yet the claimed nuclear test sites are still radioactive because of the bombs. So, which truth is it? Radioactive fallout lasts a long time or mysteriously vanishes in a short time with simple cleanup? It's almost like people are making things up as they go and can't get their propaganda straight!

1945: 1 Nagasaki
1945: 1 Hiroshima
Total: 2

Between 1946 and 1958, there were 23 nuclear devices detonated at various spots on, within, above, or beneath Bikini Atoll.
Between 1951 and 1992 a total of 928 nuclear tests were conducted at the NTS (Nevada), 828 of which were underground.
Total: 951

- Hiroshima bomb 15 kilotons TNT equivalent
- Nagasaki bomb 25 kilotons TNT equivalent
- By end of 1962 the total of all atmospheric tests had risen from the 1951 value of 0.6 million tonnes of TNT equivalent to about 500 million tonnes equivalent.

Funny how as the world modernized, the tests started being run underground, then they started being run not at all. It's kind of like how ghosts mysteriously stopped haunting places as soon as everyone had smartphones.

[AATW]

No one here seems to be able to prove something is real despite constantly saying it is so. It's a running theme with RE'ers.

How does one prove anything? Outside of mathematical theorems nothing can be proven in the strictest sense.

Prove kangeroos exist. Go on.
Any evidence you present I can dismiss as fake or wrong if I'm determined enough to.
And then, as you continue to let kangaroos loose in my house, I can dismiss them all as animatronic fakes while shouting "See! You couldn't prove it!"
This is not an honest way of enquiring about anything.

The best we can do on pretty much any topic we don't have direct experience of is to look at the evidence.
And the evidence for nuclear weapons existing is overwhelming.

The physics of them is well understood - if the claim was that an invisibility ray existed which could zap things invisible then one would probably pause to consider how the hell that would work.

They have been used in war in living memory, there are many testimonies from survivors and accounts of radiation sicknesses and deaths. Some of those survivors are still alive.

The blast radius and level of destruction is not something any conventional weapon I'm aware of can achieve. As I said it was the equivalent of 25,000 tons of TNT.

There have been many nuclear tests since WWII and a lot of people who witnessed them. Again, the radiation effects of this have been measured in in some places persist and there are numerous photos and videos of these tests.

So...your only argument here is one of incredulity. That seems to be based on why they aren't used all the time if they exist?
I guess because they are incredibly destructive - most are significantly more powerful than the ones dropped in WWII. So there's the whole MAD thing.
And they have a significant radiation impact. Sure, Russia could drop one on Ukraine as the latter don't have nukes, but that would surely risk retaliation from The West.
And if they don't exist then why is Putin waving round his nuclear willy anyway. He surely knows they don't exist, our powers that be know that too and he must know we know that, so why make such an empty threat?

To say there's "no evidence" they exist is ludicrous. There's absolutely loads of evidence. If you want to dismiss it all then fine and rely on your personal incredulity then fine, I guess. But then going "Aha! See? You can't prove it!" is not the gotcha you think it is.

[Pete Svarrior]

And if they don't exist then why is Putin waving round his nuclear willy anyway.

If you don't give me your lunch money, I will remotely poke your eyes out using NuBully™ technology. It pokes your eyes out remotely, from the comfort of my desk. It really exists, and I'm gonna use it any moment now. Oooooh, I've opened the command line - I'm gonna do it, I'm totally typing it in!!!!

Give me your lunch money, or else!

You might notice that nobody gave in to Putin's very scary demands. It matches your narrative quite neatly.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

I think the real point of this thread  (besides the fact that Rushy loves to troll) is that you will not convince the willfully ignorant of anything they don't want to believe.
If someone doesn't want to believe in kangaroos and they have no friends or connections in the outside world, no amount of photos or DNA samples will convince them.
I have connections in the military, medical industry, petroleum industry. I have friends all over the world, some in Australia who have actually seen a kangaroo. So when a conspiracy freak on the internet tries to convince me that kangaroos don't exist, he's going to have to tell me that my friend has been lying all these years.

I have informational resources all over the planet. When my government is lying to me, I have no problem finding out. They are corrupt and incompetent buffoons that couldn't keep their most top secret program a secret even with unlimited budget and no oversight.

Kangaroos live!

[stack]

And yet the claimed nuclear test sites are still radioactive because of the bombs. So, which truth is it? Radioactive fallout lasts a long time or mysteriously vanishes in a short time with simple cleanup? It's almost like people are making things up as they go and can't get their propaganda straight!

1945: 1 Nagasaki
1945: 1 Hiroshima
Total: 2

Between 1946 and 1958, there were 23 nuclear devices detonated at various spots on, within, above, or beneath Bikini Atoll.
Between 1951 and 1992 a total of 928 nuclear tests were conducted at the NTS (Nevada), 828 of which were underground.
Total: 951

- Hiroshima bomb 15 kilotons TNT equivalent
- Nagasaki bomb 25 kilotons TNT equivalent
- By end of 1962 the total of all atmospheric tests had risen from the 1951 value of 0.6 million tonnes of TNT equivalent to about 500 million tonnes equivalent.

Funny how as the world modernized, the tests started being run underground, then they started being run not at all. It's kind of like how ghosts mysteriously stopped haunting places as soon as everyone had smartphones.

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.

[RonJ]

You don't have any 'evidence standards' for what a nuclear device is or isn't do you?  How can you possibly claim that what I've seen is false and I've been 'lied to'?  Gas lighting just doesn't work with me.  Why don't you go to Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and start your spew.  People there probably need your kind of psychological help.

I'm sure you draw all of this knowledge from your enormous understanding of nuclear devices... You're just repeating what you've been told your entire life. "No! People can't lie to me! I am lie proof!"

Thanks for the confirmation of your cultist beliefs.  Your posted spews were well done but now it's time for the next step.  Please consult your master.