Comments by "Diogo Jorge" (@DiogoJ1) on "Putin 'strikes' NATO-supplied ammunition depot; Explosions shake Ukraine's Khmelnytskyi" video.

  1. Hardly. If it was a nuke, you wouldn't even be able to record it at that distance.
    33
  2.  @spugged9800  Never said otherwise. I have read and understood it correctly. Just pointing out the difference. No need to be so out of shape over me pointing out facts.
    13
  3. Nothing they deserve for their sins. Russia should have never invaded Ukraine.
    3
  4. For what? For invading another country? No glory in that.
    2
  5.  @johanstinson  Whatever you need or not, I will do so anyway. Lol, you don't even know my height. Who are you to decide whetever I'm little or big?
    2
  6. Keep dreaming. Europe will endure with ease.
    1
  7.  Alex  Why what? If it was a nuke, that camera would be unable to record it. That's the major difference in power.
    1
  8.  @carlosnavarro-cj2jv  Know better than you it seems. A nuke with less than that in power couldn't even be called an real nuke. Also, for all we know Redacted might be wrong about the value.
    1
  9.  @carlosnavarro-cj2jv  I will, since I know better than you. A nuke is by definition, a nuclear weapon. It doesn't matter what the mechanism is, if the resulting explosion isn't nuclear. "A nuclear weapon is a device that uses a nuclear reaction to create an explosion. This explosion is much more powerful than that of conventional explosives (like TNT). When a nuclear weapon explodes, it gives off four types of energy: a blast wave, intense light, heat, and radiation." So, the mechanism doesn't matter. What matters, is the result of said weapon. No radiation, means no nuke. Never said that it was the size that mattered. But do keep talking and making a fool out of yourself by putting words in my mouth. Even a 1kt nuclear explosion would have destroyed the camera.
    1
  10.  @carlosnavarro-cj2jv  I didn't though. Your post looks different from what I've said. You talked about a mechanism, I'm talking about the kind of explosion it creates. If you think that looks the same thing, you might as well get your eyes checked. If not, that means you agree with me.
    1
  11.  @niklaus9678  Yes, but like I said, it's the kind of explosion that matters to define the nuke, and the non-nuke. 4 kilos only has power behind it, but lacks the radiation.
    1
  12.  @theViomax  No, I'm not. I already posted the definition of a nuke. I couldn't be more right, even if I tried.
    1
  13.  @Gfysimpletons  What are you babbling about? Your comment makes no sense.
    1
  14.  @carlosnavarro-cj2jv  No, I said the explosion had no effect on the camera. If there was radiation, the camera would be affected by it. That's why it can't be compared. Reread my initial post. It clealy says "If it was a nuke, it wouldn't have been able to record it". The resulting light would be too strong to record. I don't need to feel right, I'm right. Simple as that. You are free to agree to disagree.
    1
  15.  @Gfysimpletons  Lol. You don't know what children games are. Also, as long games are fun, it doesn't matter what their intended demografic is. I'm already smarter than you... so...
    1
  16.  @madmaXX_OP  He's laughing at you for supporting evil.
    1