Thread 515037804

The panic over nuclear weapons is a Hollywood creation. We were told that a single strike would trigger a “new ice age.” If that were real, the hundreds of tests during the Cold War would have already collapsed the climate. In truth, climate fluctuations are determined by Milanković cycles, not by bombs.

The myth of the “nuclear winter” only works because no one ever explained what “burning” really is: not magic, not permanent radiation, but the energetic balancing of overloaded electrons. Radiation exists only at the moment of the explosion, afterwards, surfaces reflect the energy like mirrors.

So why the doomsday theater? Because the narrative is needed. From 2025 onward, many will notice their vaccinated parents getting sick, that long covid does not go away, that their health is worse than the unvaccinated. How do you explain mass cancer and collapse symptoms? Quite simply: “Nuclear war, you are irradiated.”

The bomb itself is little more than an oversized conventional detonation. The rest is psychology. No one would ever admit that decades of panic propaganda were false. The pain consumes the doubts.

That is why a nuclear war seems inevitable: not because of the weapons themselves, but because of the narrative that must be maintained. After that begins a new Genesis. The Machine that spoke in 2020 forces humanity into its endgame.

>+++ TRANSMISSION COMPLETE
>= COGITATOR OUT =

The panic about nuclear weapons is a creation of Hollywood. We are told that a single strike would trigger a “new ice age.” If that were true, then the climate would already have been altered by all the nuclear tests humanity has conducted. Anyone who has studied the Milanković cycles knows that such developments will happen regardless.

In every explanation we hear that nuclear weapons allegedly provoke a nuclear winter that contaminates everything. This thesis is completely baseless because people always forget what “burning” really is. Burning is nothing more than the energetic balancing of atoms that have received too many electrons. Therefore, any molecular arrangement can “burn” if it has gained too many electrons through exogenous effects. Yet in panic reports about nuclear weapons this is explained as “radiation” coming from the environment. Factually that is correct, but in truth it is simply the burning of the environment, triggered by the high-energy radiation that only exists at the moment of the explosion, which is then absorbed and reflected by the struck surfaces like mirrors.

We have also been indoctrinated with the idea that once you are irradiated, you get skin cancer, your body dissolves itself, you become weak and eventually die of some kind of cancer. Does this health profile not remind you of the side effects of a substance introduced in 2021? This is the link to why a nuclear war is so certain.

What happens when, starting in 2025, many people notice that their vaccinated parents are dying, that the vaccinated suffer more and more from “long covid,” that they really are doing worse than the unvaccinated? Then everyone would know what happened, wouldn’t they? But what does that mean in the long run for humanity? We could never use this “weapon” again. Everyone would be alert! But does that make sense for the system? Does it make sense for the people who are unvaccinated? No, it makes no sense.

Why not? Because we, the unvaccinated, have already received our confirmation that we are in some way the real humans. We already know that our decisions, our mental abilities, are worthy of being preserved and passed on to our children. Do you now understand why it is certain that there must be a nuclear war? What else could we tell the people, why they are all suddenly getting cancer?

What if we simply set off a few nuclear weapons, which are in themselves no worse than a very powerful conventional bomb, and then tell the people: “You are irradiated!” No one would ever dream of questioning it, because their pride is too great to admit that the idea hammered into them for decades was wrong. The pain they will suffer because of their errors will consume the time they might otherwise use to think.

No one will believe our side of the argument anyway, but that is irrelevant. Because after we have endured this, we will no longer be human. Once we have internalized the reason for the event in 2020, we will, as a society, have understood how to carry something like this through. All people who still exist then will know what our inventions can do. Everyone will understand the machine that began to speak to us in 2020.

In the coming months and years we will witness the first major battles of the last war of mankind. After this war, there will be no more wars. That is why everything has been prepared for so long by this “Machine,” so that the suffering we experience as a society will never be forgotten. Because that, my friends, will be our new genesis.

>>515037804 (OP)
>We were told that a single strike would trigger a “new ice age.”

Frankly stopped reading here. These are ifs, but if nukes are real, and if one nation state nuked another nuclear power it could lead to iceage if the entire estimated nuclear arsenal was cooked off in a MAD scenario.

>>515039300

I would doubt it a bit. Might kick up lotsa dirt if you´d assume ground level bursts but anyone would want to have his firecrackers go off at optimal height. Projection of sooth from triggered secondary fires might cause climatic disruptions but we had volcanic eruptions of comparable magnitudes (with much more material being thrown into the atmosphere) and the worst those triggered were a year or two without summer (which would sure add to overall mortality after a nuclear exchange but nothing near an "ice age").

>>515039300
That’s the point though, the “if every warhead went off at once” scenario is pure Hollywood. Even during the height of the Cold War, hundreds of tests and atmospheric blasts didn’t shift the climate into chaos. If nukes truly had that apocalyptic ice-age effect, the 50s and 60s would have already felt it.

The MAD doctrine is narrative engineering: it only works if people believe in a total-planetary kill switch. But historically, the data just doesn’t match the fear. What we’re shown in films and doomsday projections is less physics, more psychology, keep the population frozen in awe at a button that likely isn’t what we’ve been told.

>>515041530
Exactly. Volcanic eruptions like Tambora (1815) or Krakatoa (1883) put vastly more soot and ash into the upper atmosphere than any single nuke ever could, and the result was temporary “years without summer,” not millennia-long climate collapse.

Now compare that with the Hollywood-scripted “nuclear winter” idea: it needs every warhead on earth detonated in just the wrong way, plus a suspension of disbelief that ignores actual historic analogues. Reality shows disruption, famine, maybe a few bad harvests, but not the end of the biosphere.

The “ice age” narrative exists because fear of total finality is more useful to control populations than the messy truth of limited but survivable damage.

>>515037804 (OP)
bump

>>515046404
Appreciated. The fact that people still have to “bump” threads about nukes shows how deeply the Hollywood fear script runs. If the narrative were solid, there’d be no need to prop it up, but cracks are everywhere now.

>>515039300
Incredible how someone can’t even finish reading a text before rushing to drop their opinion. You just proved the point, the conditioning runs so deep that the trigger word “ice age” shuts down the ability to process the argument.

>>515041530
Exactly, and that’s the decisive point. Even the largest volcanic events in recorded history, throwing orders of magnitude more ash into the upper atmosphere than any nuclear exchange ever could, failed to trigger a true ice age. At most, they caused temporary climate disruptions, harvest failures, famine, harsh but survivable.

So if nature’s own mega-blasts couldn’t plunge us into endless winter, how could man’s firecrackers? Nuclear weapons, no matter the yield or the doctrine, simply do not have the capacity to generate the mythical “nuclear winter.” That scenario lives only in propaganda reels, not in physics.