Nuclear Weapons Hoax
Note: With CGI technology, false flags and crises actors/actresses, it would be easy for one side to claim that such-and-such city was hit by a nuke. Or, it could be a real strike but the damage done was by carpet bombing by conventional weapons. Such was the case Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They were whipped out but not with a nuclear bomb but with conventional weapons.
By Gina Flores
Editor at NoFakeNews
For many years we have been told nuclear weapons have been stockpiled by various superpower countries. We have all been exposed to the paradigm that promotes the idea that nuclear weapons have made the world a far safer place even though these horrific devices could theoretically wipe out millions of lives in a few seconds. We’ve been told nuclear weapons are a deterrent to other potentially dangerous enemies of the United States and its allies and that they ultimately prevent wars and allow peace on earth to flourish.
Is it possible that what we have been taught about this subject is based on establishment lies?
After it was developed, the atomic bomb was allegedly dropped on Japan twice in the 1940’s. The bombs reportedly brought a quick end to World War II. The technology was never used again in any war although the threat of nuclear weapons against humanity and the planet has been publicized ad nauseum.
The only other evidence of atomic weapons being used in history has come in the form of highly secretive government tests. All of these tests have had limited government witnesses and many have been conducted underground or underwater. All of these tests could have been performed with the use of conventional bombs. TNT could have been used to fabricate any A-Bomb test. And yes, conventional bombs can and do produce the classic mushroom clouds that we routinely associate with atomic bombs.
In addition, the continuous threat of nukes being detonated by terrorists has been so overplayed in Hollywood movie productions throughout the years that people are now programmed to believe it’s only a matter of time before one of these devices will be used against a highly populated city. Yet there have been zero nukes used by crazy terrorists anywhere in the world. This fact alone is more than a little strange.
There are anonymous government insiders who claim the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by conventional fire bombings and not by atomic weapons. There are some researchers who claim atomic bombs are impossible to manufacture.
The buildings that were left intact and the lack of radiation found in Hiroshima and Nagasaki seem to support this claim.
Israel is purported to have a huge inventory of 400 nuclear weapons at their disposal and yet they have never detonated one device in the direction of their Arab neighbors. These are the same Arab neighbors they despise. Are they bluffing?
With so many unstable countries and crazy terrorist groups allegedly in existence, and so many nuclear weapons seemingly at their disposal or available for sale, how is it possible that not one nuclear incident has ever occurred?
What other amazing technology was revealed long ago and has never been used again, although we are constantly reminded of the accomplishment? The moon landings of course; another hoax of epic proportions.
Do the world leaders of certain countries really walk around with nuclear suitcases and corresponding launch codes? Do nuclear weapons actually exist? Probably not.
Before you write all of this off as a crazy conspiracy theory, think for a minute about how much leverage certain countries possess over others because of their claimed nuclear arsenals. What if there are zero nukes in existence in the entire world?
Think of all the military spending that’s taken place with regards to nuclear programs. And don’t forget about all the money that’s been budgeted by countries to protect their infrastructures from incoming nuclear weapons.
Just as the elites have lied about space technology and visiting the moon, there’s a damn good chance they’re lying about the existence of atomic weapons. They have lied about most things people have been taught are real.
Although Ronald Reagan postulated that “Of the four wars in my lifetime none came about because the U.S. was too strong,” who can know what may have historically come to fruition had the U.S. remained the sole possessor of atomic weaponry. There’s a presumptive, and perhaps even arrogant, concept of American leadership as somehow, unless directly militarily provoked, being morally/ethically above using nuclear weapons internationally. Cannot absolute power corrupt absolutely? Absolute power is well-known for corrupting absolutely.
After President Harry S. Truman relieved General Douglas MacArthur as commander of the forces warring with North Korea — for the latter’s remarks about using many atomic bombs to promptly end the war — Americans’ approval-rating of the president dropped to 23 percent. It was still a record-breaking low, even lower than the worst approval-rating points of the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson.
Had it not been for the formidable international pressure on Truman (and perhaps his personal morality) to relieve MacArthur as commander, could/would Truman eventually have succumbed to domestic political pressure to allow MacArthur’s command to continue?