Replying to Avatar ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ

knowing that explosive nuclear fission is an extremely improbable outcome of even the most fancy and delicate mechanism one can envisage really changes the color of the news about war

hypersonics = big deal, can't be shot down

drones = big deal, can be launched by recon guys incognito and precision strike in a way that no ballistics can, can be dropped out of high altitude light aircraft as well instead of mounting missiles, they can be drone deployment units.

wasting bunker busters on turning a dirty bomb refinement plant into a dirty bomb (nothing to do with the improbable explosive nuclear fission) is something that trump is refusing to do because those bunker busters are for killing PEOPLE not spreading refined plutonium around. and make no mistake, plutonium is a very toxic ingredient for a compact dirty bomb, indeed, you might not want it to explode, better would be it melts down and the targets inhale plutonium vapor. also, would be better if it was basically no louder than a gunshot when it detonates, and leaves very little traces of what it is

but explosive nuclear fission is propaganda code for "banksters want us to poison and murder these people"
Avatar
gojiberra 7mo ago

I don't understand the bunker buster part. They would rather use "bunker busters" to kill people directly than to target refinement plants? Is it that the the stated target is the refinement plants but the actual target is just people and they don't care about the refinement plants?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 7mo ago

the target is the refinement plant. most likely the result would be dispersing plutonium vapor from the shockwaves of the impact causing the material to contact metallic objects and melt down and boil. the bunker busters do leave a hole sufficient for such hot vapor to escape and it would probably poison everything within 2-4 km downwind, likely cancer within 3-5 years.