can anyone explain why nukes are not able to destroy mountains? I mean nukes are supposed to be apocalyptic world destroyers, so mountains shouldn't be a problem or yes?
>>508232665 (OP) only a nuclear weapon can maybe hit fordow. they're already running a psyop saying a conventional weapon would cause radiation. they're about to use a nuke
AnonymousID: Ng/oZYCQ
6/21/2025, 11:45:45 PM No.508233003
>>508232855 Why can't you just bunker bust the mountain ranges, goy?
What about the environment? Oh right, everything is the opposite of what they say. Best ally = worst enemy
AnonymousID: /xbJYZhi
6/22/2025, 12:06:35 AM No.508234602
>>508232770 we need billions of brown retarded filth to compete with china and work in our nonexistent factories and soon to be mostly nonexistent cubicle jobs. we need a trillion dollars invested into AI that we cant power because it takes us 30 years to build a reactor.
AnonymousID: /xbJYZhi
6/22/2025, 12:08:31 AM No.508234756
>>508233903 nepalese are basically jeets, anything of value went into a sherpas pocket while they were still breathing.
>>508232665 (OP) Probably two, maybe three should do it. I've seen mexican fireworks blow up bigger mountains than that. I bet I could throw a football over that
>>508232855 Hiroshima and Nagasaki were firebombed and the wood and paper houses (a lot at the time) were the main material damages. The atomic tourism explosions at Lasvegas were tnt and effects. The firm EG&G was responsible for the effects