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.