[rerevisionist]

I'm taking the liberty of reposting a comment made by FirstClassSkeptic. If we assume A bombs never worked, why go on to invent H Bombs too? Well....

It had occured to me that perhaps Groves and the others realized that they had gone too far in promoting their imaginary atomic bomb as a wonderful weapon. The general public began thinking up a lot of good uses for it.

During Vietnam, people said, "Why don't they just drop the bomb on them?" And even during the Iraq invasion, people said,"Why don't they just nuke them?" It may have surprised the Manhattan group that White Christians didn't have any reservations about obliterating non-white, non-Christians. And why be afraid of a weapon that only you possessed?

Realizing that the public might start demanding the use of the atomic bomb, which of course couldn't be realized because it didn't exist, they had to think up reasons not to use the bomb. So I can imagine a four prong method:

1) Promote this radiation stuff, that drifted with the wind, so that an atomic war could never be localized, but affected everyone around earth.

2) Promote the 'brotherhood of man' in all the Christian churches, so that white Christians would have some reservations about bombing someone halfway around the world. (I don't think this has worked so well, really.)

3) 'Leak' the plans for the imaginary weapon to the USSR and other places. Develop Mutually Assured Destruction. So the weapon isn't yours alone anymore.

4) Juice the weapons up to such a size, and say there are so many of them, and talk about how many times over the earth could be destroyed.

Thus making nuclear war 'unthinkable'.

Very ingenious point, worth repeating. At the time, late 50s/ early 60s, Bertrand Russell was saying something like '... modern science has made it inevitable that all must live or all must die.' This seems an odd claim, since hardly any countries were supposed to have the things. But if there's huge destruction and radiation, and moreover if shelters are stated to be more or less impractical, then neighbours and other countries get harmed, too. Also it made it necessary to have leaks to the 'Russians', i.e. Jews controlling the Soviet Union, which of course is the sort of thing Jews do habitually on auto-pilot. It also made it necessary to oppose Senator Joseph McCarthy and generally agitate in favour of supposed spies - if the issue really had been that serious, it's hard to imagine anyone being lax about it. (Similar thing with AIDS of course).

Russell (apologies to Americans - I'm a sort of fan of his, but I think his impact in the USA was less than here) is now known to have been fed information from British official sources, and it's hard to know how much of it was Russell giving his own views, and Russell trimming to e.g. suit his view of world government. The info to him must have been rather secret - Denis Healey says in his autobiography that he visited Russell to quiz him on nuclear issues, but wasn't impressed, suggesting various branches were doing their own things.

[EyesWideOpen]

The Hydrogen Bomb was "invented" by Edward Teller and Stanislaw Ulam.

If something works once, then why not twice, three times, four times, five times, "6" times.

The "Moon Walk" was done "6" times.

lol

You gotta keep the FED printing presses rolling.

[rerevisionist]

If Teller faked the H bomb - i.e. presumably they came up with claims and diagrams, based on real physics, but unworkable, and which looked plausible - then of course it's worrying that Teller suggested a design before his death, for an underground nuclear power system supposedly based on thorium.
Right-click to open in new window: China - Thorium based power = toxic dumps?

[Mod: Added later: also on this forum is Thorium power: new Jewish 'non profit' Pressure Group in Britain - right click to open in new window]

I wasn't sure what you mean by 'the moon walk' being done 6 times. There were more than twice as many 'Apollo' faked 'missions', and I thought maybe you'd followed peoples' TV habits at the time - there was little interest in the later ones. But then I rechecked, and there were in fact 6 claims of walking, as you say.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

When the set off the first explosion at Bikini atoll, the news reporters present weren't impressed. In fact, they made fun of it. The second explosion went off a little more impressively. Still it didn't sink the island or all the ships.

If you think how small the Bikini Atoll is compared to the land surface of the earth, it might take a few million such bombs to destroy the earth. They had to hype up this atomic bomb thing until they could come up with a believable number of warheads with the power to destroy all life on earth. They were trying to scare every inhabitant on earth.

So, an H bomb, with 50 or 100 'Hiroshimas' equivalent.

They also measured bombers in 'World War Two's. They would say, "This one bomber carries five times the equivalent of all the bombs dropped in World War Two." Or, five 'world war twos'.

[rerevisionist]

Lol, yes, now you mention it. Number of warheads - tens of thousands. And of course there's money in larger numbers of them. Just a dozen or so wouldn't be much of a fraud.

[EyesWideOpen]

When the set off the first explosion at Bikini atoll, the news reporters present weren't impressed. In fact, they made fun of it. The second explosion went off a little more impressively. Still it didn't sink the island or all the ships.

If you think how small the Bikini Atoll is compared to the land surface of the earth, it might take a few million such bombs to destroy the earth. They had to hype up this atomic bomb thing until they could come up with a believable number of warheads with the power to destroy all life on earth. They were trying to scare every inhabitant on earth.

So, an H bomb, with 50 or 100 'Hiroshimas' equivalent.

They also measured bombers in 'World War Two's. They would say, "This one bomber carries five times the equivalent of all the bombs dropped in World War Two." Or, five 'world war twos'.

I came across someone the other day, who did a calculation where he added up the ENTIRE supposed world supply of Nuclear Weapons and he claimed that all of them would only destroy about 1% of the Earth's surface.

Then again, you can fit every human on Earth (6.775 Billion) onto Australia and give each family of (4) just over 1/2 an acre to live on; and half of Australia would still be empty. The land area of Australia is a little under 5% of the total land area on Earth.

[rerevisionist]

Then again, you can fit every human on Earth (6.775 Billion) onto Australia and give each family of (4) just over 1/2 an acre to live on; and half of Australia would still be empty. The land area of Australia is a little under 5% of the total land area on Earth.

In the UK at present we use 150 litres of water per person per day. If there were 8 billion people in Australia, they'd presumably like 1.2 trillion litres of water a day, i.e. about 4.5 million billion litres a year. Australia's present DOMESTIC ONLY water supply appears to be about 2 Gigalitres a year. If I've got my decimal points in the right place, the people would have half an acre, with less than a millionth the amount of water they'd like. And that's not counting industry and agriculture. Or food.

[rerevisionist]

I just read a similar comment, which I thought was well worded: '.. there is plenty of space in England and Wales. [And Australia!] There is also plenty of space in the Sahara, the Gobi desert, and the South Pole. [And under the oceans.] You can walk for days and not see anyone..'

[FirstClassSkeptic]

I am not sure if this fits in, but I have heard talk that everything shown on the Star Trek television show of the 1970's actually existed, and still exists in improved form. The traction beam, the teleporter, the stun guns, communicators, talking computer, warp drive, so on.

And there's talk that NASA is just old technology; there's a parallel space program with advanced propulsion systems. "They" have gone to Mars, and other planets. There's a moon base on the far side of the moon.

And the US military had advanced integrated circuits in the 1960's. They have microwave weapons, laser weapons, other exotic stuff you don't know about. They can see into your house, and read your wrist watch from a satellite.

This must be all calculated to put anyone into a state of awe. "And they worshiped the Beast, saying; Who is like the Beast, and who is able to make war against it?"

The H-bomb is that notch up above the un demonstrated.

[EyesWideOpen]

In the UK at present we use 150 litres of water per person per day. If there were 8 billion people in Australia, they'd presumably like 1.2 trillion litres of water a day, i.e. about 4.5 million billion litres a year. Australia's present DOMESTIC ONLY water supply appears to be about 2 Gigalitres a year. If I've got my decimal points in the right place, the people would have half an acre, with less than a millionth the amount of water they'd like. And that's not counting industry and agriculture. Or food.

Australia is SURROUNDED by water. The other half of Australia that no one lives on can be industry and so forth. Better yet... gather all the humans together and nuke them. lol.

No one was seriously suggesting putting everyone on Australia, it was just to provide a numerical example of just how big planet Earth really is.

This must be all calculated to put anyone into a state of awe. "And they worshiped the Beast, saying; Who is like the Beast, and who is able to make war against it?"

Agreed. The only state of "awe" people should have, is with the monstrosity of their satanic lies and deceptions.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

The main problem isn't overpopulation; it's race. Zimbabwe proved that.

[rerevisionist]

@EyesWideOpen - it used to be said that everyone could stand on the Isle of Wight, but I suppose most people didn't know where that was. Martha's Vineyard is about 2/3 the size, so with a lot of crowding they could squeeze onto that, although of course not in practice - no doubt there'd be panics and fights. It's true the world is big, and this argument was often used to support the Marxist, Catholic, and generalised indifferentist view that the population problem was and is a myth. But as my comments were vaguely intended to show, the total of each person's needs is big, too.
______________

Note added 24 June: In addition to FirstClassSkeptic's arguments, note that to spread fear widely, delivery systems would be needed. Since radar had been hyped as a huge WW2 success, people might still think in terms of one-country retaliation, and this may be why nuclear submarines were invented, and with missiles launched from them. I have some doubts about the feasibility of both these things, and it's easy to see why they might have been made up.