>There is no radioactive wasteland in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Small fission bombs don't create a "nuclear wasteland". Fallout is severely overhyped. There's an increase in cancer though from Hiroshima survivors: https://www.rerf.or.jp/en/programs/roadmap_e/health_effects-en/late-en/cancrisk/ >Dresden had worse damage. Yeah, no shit. They firebombed it. That doesn't mean fission and fusion bombs are fake. >The footage you've seen of those explosions are fake. Some of the footage is fake. >Many people have suggested that nukes are, if not totally overblown in their reputation, completely fake. "Some people say." Who fucking cares? >The reasons are that a lot of the footage is totally fake of early nuclear tests. Why are you repeating yourself? I know a lot of the early tests were fake footage. Again, this doesn't mean they don't exist. >In China, in particular, their videos from the 60s show completely bogus "computers" and then show an army of men on horses and in gas masks rushing towards the explosion with fire hoses and rifles. Ok? It makes sense for countries to fake how advanced their technology is. >The American tests are also not that convincing looking when you compare what Hollywood can do today. The building blowing away in slow motion is one obviously fake example. Also, keep in mind, the person who was in charge of curating the Kennedy assassination footage is also in charge of preserving the nuclear testing footage. No one is disagreeing that much of the early footage was faked. This doesn't change the fact that nuclear fission and fusion are real. It's hard science that you can replicate yourself to a sufficient degree that you can understand exactly how nukes work. >One of the original stories of the American tests is that, in order to compare blasts and assign a "kiloton" number, they set up two towers. One with 15 kilotons of TNT and another with "the bomb". They, then, set off both towers simultaneously and coincidentally got it exactly right. I don't know the specifics of that test. It wouldn't be "coincidentally" though. It means they understood the payloads and were correct. >Another reason is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki experienced less destruction than Dresden and there is no radioactive aftermath. That's false. >The cities were inhabitable and rebuilt right away. Yeah, because nukes aren't as bad as the hype would make them seem. There were people vaporized and detectable radioactive isotopes though, and still are. >There is no nuclear winter in Japan. In fact, the Fukushima plant is considered far more dangerous of a location. Many have stated that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were merely firebombed, like Dresden, and it was blamed on an atomic bomb as a form of propaganda. Nuclear winter is hyperbolic bullshit, just like "climate change". They have no idea what will happen to the earth if there is an all-out nuclear war. Again, this doesn't mean that fission and fusion don't exist. >Keep in mind, Japan had already surrendered. Yeah, I know. (((Truman))) dropped the nukes to force the Emperor to step down because his jewish masters didn't want Japan to have a tie to their prior culture. >For that and many other reasons, plenty of people think that nukes are fake and merely a scare tactic of propagandists. These aren't valid reasons to think fission and fusion are fake! >Generally, wherever you are on the Internet, shills will appear if you attempt to argue this issue in favor of the unpopular opinion, showing that it is still a topic of concern to propagandists. Again, fission and fusion are real. There was absolutely propaganda about them and things were faked.