Comments by "Engineering the weird guy" (@engineeringtheweirdguy2103) on "CaspianReport" channel.

Exactly how did Nato invade ukraine? Did Nato tell Ukraine to ask to join the EU or NATO? no they didnt, Ukraine asked to join. Nato didnt invade ukraine, Russia did. Why the hell do you think its Nato's fault?
1
you think nukes dont exist?
1
@Roflmfaoftw So Hiroshima, Nagasaki, all fake?
1
@Roflmfaoftw .... only a very few and none at the epicentre, also you cant clear everything in a uniform radius and have debris blasted that even away from a focal point with cluster bombs. That also doesn't explain the shadows produced by people being vaporized. There is only 1 way that happens. You also need to try to explain away the first hand accounts of hundreds of survivors who witnessed it in what was at the time, an enemy country. Dont know about you, but I dont think you'd start singing fake propaganda lines for a country thats trying to invade and dropping bombs on your homeland.
1
@Roflmfaoftw well firstly, Nuclear weapons don't typically create craters. that is because they are typically detonated around 1,000 - 15,000 ft in the air. (both Nagasaki and Hiroshima were detonated at around 1,600 ft) That is so they create something call an "airburst" which is far more devastating than the actual fireball. If it was cluster bombing you would see many little craters. like in Dresden. Dresden only looks similar in destruction. But no in detail. Firstly buildings left standing are damaged almost evenly in all directions. some damaged on one side, some damaged on the other, buildings left standing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were damaged uniformly pointing to an epicentre, Burn marks in Dresden were also random, whilst Hiroshima and Nagasaki had uniform burns all pointing towards and epicentre. Typical of a single large explosion, not many smaller ones. Lastly, the rubble was evenly dispersed around Dresden, whilst in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, you will notice that debris concentrations get lower and lower the closer you get to the epicentre which would be consistent with everything being blown away from a single spot.
1
@Roflmfaoftw Critical thinking is not a crime. But best used with common sense.
1
@Roflmfaoftw also why are survivors a problem. Like any weapon there is a limit to the fatal range. Beyond that range is severe injury then mild injury and beyond that it’s still a visible event people can witness. All of which are deemed “survivors” you seem to think the bomb should have killed everyone on the whole island of Japan on one go?
1
Russia is well aware that they dont stand a chance is hell against NATO in a conventional war due to technology, fire-power, range, training, experience or logistics. That is why they rely so heavily on Nuclear threats rather than conventional arms. They have more nukes. Further to that, unfortunately, the only place Russia has the technological edge, is in nuclear warefare. Russia is one of the few countries that have hypersonic ballistic missile delivery systems for their nukes. The US and NATO do not. Further more, hypersonic missiles are so new to the scene that at current NATO and the US dont have any defences for them developed yet. (some in development but haven't even reached prototype phase). The problem is that these missiles move so fast that they create a plasma shockwave infront of the missile, making it nearly impossible to detect and track. And even if you could detect and track the missile, current missile defence systems which rely on firing smaller, more manoeuvrable missiles at the nukes, aren't fast enough to intercept them effectively. So the reason NATO is so hesitant to test Russia's nuclear threat is because at current, they have a delivery system which they cannot counter or defend against. Its not a coincidence that Russia's full invasion of Ukraine, after Crimea, came after their announcement of their hypersonic missiles with test footage. for the first time since the cold war, Russia has an advantage it can press NATO with.
1