Nah, dude. There’s plenty to disagree with in the parts of this message and your other reply down below where you try to imply modern nuclear weapons are clean and pose little to no risk beyond that of conventional weapons. Gaslight all you like, but your words are right there for all to see (unless suddenly they gain an edit timestamp after that of this comment, of course…).
where you try to imply modern nuclear weapons are clean and pose little to no risk beyond that of conventional weapons
I don’t. What I said is:
- Modern nuclear weapons are less dirty than the two used so far against any population.
- Israel might not care about the previous point, and actually prefer a dirty bomb.
- In modern nuclear weapons, the yield and area affected (both by the explosion, and by the fallout) can be controlled with high precision, starting at a level comparable to that of largest conventional weapons.
- The US honed that skill by turning nukes into a tourist attraction for its own citizens over 60 years ago.
- The city next to the area they used for that, not only still stands, but has flourished since.
Again, feel free to quote any part of my comments if you think I said something different (don’t give me a chance to add “an edit timestamp”… 🙄) or if you just want to discuss it.
PS: I will edit my comments if I feel it can make my point clearer, or if I change my mind, or even blank and delete them if I stop caring about anyone reading them (did that to close to 30K comments on Reddit already, and it’s not the first time; if you want to keep anything I’ve ever said, better make a copy while you can).
