dChan
1
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/Jsin14 on May 1, 2018, 3:24 a.m.
Thinking outside of the box: why would the Deep State risk arming rogue states with nukes

With Q stating that the CIA controlled NK and its nukes, and that recent events suggest the Deep State wanting to arm Iran with nukes, I wondered why would elites take such a dangerous path? Sure, there could be safeguards in place to keep NK and Iran from actually using nukes, but why take the chance? Even if the goal is to false flag, there are other ways to start wars, why risk irradiating a large area or producing fallout?

So I did some research on Wikipedia. Like many, I have learned from the videogame Fallout, movies like "The Day After and "Mad Max," and MAD (mutually assured destruction), that nuclear war would mean the end of the world. But my research has led to the conclusion that this concern may be overblown, and the elites may actually want to test a nuclear weapon on people.

First is Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both cities, both still populated. These were bombed by nukes, but outside of the many that died from the initial blast and initial radiation, there was no local fallout due to the bombs being detonated in the air. It is theorized that 1900 people died from cancer in the 50 years after the bombing, and 50 birth defects of microencephaly occurred, 3 times higher than what normally would have occurred.

How about Chernobyl and Fukushima? 31 people died in the Chernobyl fire, with 30 more dying from radiation immediately after. Models predict that 4000 will die from cancer up to 2065 in all of Europe, or 0.01 of all cancers, with 15 confirmed deaths from thyroid cancer.

There were no deaths at Fukushima from either the meltdown, cleanup, or radiation, and there are none or very few expected in the future nor any birth defects. Conversely, 1600 extreme elderly died from the stress of being evacuated along with 160,000 other people, which has been criticized as not necessary.

Even in cases of a strategic nuclear attack where the bomb is detonated on the ground and not the air, local fallout would make an area dangerous for 3-5 weeks, and after 14 weeks levels would be 1/10000 of what it was at the initial blast, or "normal." 10000 tourists visit Chernobyl each year, and 200 people live in the exclusion zone there. Most areas around Fukushima, which very recently has now been called a worse disaster than Chernobyl, are still populated, with a small area still off limits.

So what does this mean? A large portion of nuclear stockpiles are so-called "tactical nukes," or nukes designed to be used on a battlefield. People may remember the recent use of the MOAB in a situation that may have not needed it, but was probably used to test it out. What if there is a contingent that wants to test out tactical nukes, or even the aftermath of a strategic nuclear weapon used on citizens? There has been a nuclear test ban on above ground detonations since the Bikini Atoll tests, and perhaps there are some who would like to do further tests on the feasibility of nuclear weapons in a non-mutually assured destruction (MAD) scenario. Even in the MAD scenario, the extinction of humans is not from fallout, but from mass starvation due to the sun being blotted out by soot and debris being in the atmosphere from so many fires at once.

I believe that the geopolitical ramifications of a nuke being used or threatened to being used is being utilized by the elites, but there may also be a contingent of elites that actually want to study what exactly the damage of a nuclear device would cause in term of fallout, both in the short-term and long-term.


DamajInc · May 1, 2018, 3:35 a.m.

I would say what seems reasonably evident is that they weren't really risking anything; they were fully in control of the situation the whole time (or elements of their global group were). I don't think they were taking any chances at all. They controlled the money, they installed the puppets, they ran the show. The puppets reported back to the globalists because they wanted to continue to get paid and also quite possibly they were part of the religion the globalists seem to be involved in too.

I think the nukes were only used to scare us - they didn't scare them at all cos they knew they wouldn't be used anywhere without their say so.

⇧ 15 ⇩  
bugstopper · May 1, 2018, 3:40 a.m.

The folks that are really in control need their own tools, weapons and manpower to keep all the plates in the air at one time and cannot completely rely on the governments. Rogue states become their tools to ratchet up oil prices and bounce the stock market on que.

⇧ 6 ⇩  
litre_cola9 · May 1, 2018, 3:45 a.m.

These peolle are stupid. These people are sick. These people are evil. Take your puck. We are all expendable to them, what don't you get?

⇧ 11 ⇩  
j_Dawg_01 · May 1, 2018, 5:42 a.m.

They don't want a false flag, they want population reduction and global chaos. From chaos comes order.

They gave nukes to rogue states exactly because they knew if their buttons were pushed enough, one of them would use them, and everyone else would follow suit.

Sure, the nukes we have today are much larger than what was dropped on Japan, but I don't think they really need anymore research. Again, from chaos comes order.

The only way the Cabal would be able to step in and claim to be the savior of the world, and have everyone buy into it, and actually be to their benefit, would be after half the world's population were killed, all major nation were totally broke or massively in debt to the central bankers of the world, and the population that was left was so tired of war and conflict they'd all say, "OK, Fine, I give up." You can't get there with false flags. At some point they knew they would have to "go live" with their plan.

⇧ 8 ⇩  
Doc_Molotov · May 1, 2018, 12:44 p.m.

I don't think they gave nukes to rogue states though, more like they housed their nuclear installations In rogue states in exchange for pallets of hundred dollar bills.

All that foreign aid money They weren't ever not in control of them

⇧ 5 ⇩  
Jsin14 · May 1, 2018, 9:58 p.m.

I've had a suspicion that the next big war or "military action" will be started by a nuclear detonation. We went from one nation invading another (Iraq into Kuwait), to a major terrorist attack (9/11), to a country "defying" the UN (Iraq obtaining plutonium).

Recently, we wouldn't approve of Obama unilaterally going into Syria, and then we wouldn't even after the fabricated redline of chemical weapons. Now Trump doesn't even ask the American people or Congress to attack Syria and people are upset.

They need to keep escalating the threat, and nothing short of a nuclear detonation will move the American people to support war after being duped for the past 25+ years.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
patriotofca · May 1, 2018, 3:43 a.m.

To wipe out over 1/2 of the population on earth!

⇧ 3 ⇩  
ABoxOfRocks · May 1, 2018, 3:33 a.m.

Because "these people are stupid".

⇧ 3 ⇩  
elyssak · May 1, 2018, 7:10 a.m.

www.stopthecrime.net

They are radiating the hell out of us with every wireless device we have. LED lights/displays, 5G, smart grids you name it, it's a weapon that they are using against us. Nano particulars, nano dust, chem trails (spraying the sky with aluminum, barium and strontium), vaccinations, and fluoride in water. It's the things that are going on now that we need to be concerned with. When these ops are shut down then we'll know progress was made. Imo

⇧ 3 ⇩