What Would a Nuclear War Look Like
For eight years, NATO has backed puppet rulers in Ukraine, funded attacks on Donbas, repeatedly violated the Minsk Treaties, outlawed the speaking of Russian in the Luhansk and Donetsk Republics, and has destroyed democratic opposition and free media in Ukraine, leaving it a one-party government, essentially owned and financed by the U.S. and administrated by U.S. operatives.
(The Minsk agreements were a series of international agreements which sought to end the Donbas war fought between armed Russian-backed separatist groups and Armed Forces of Ukraine, with Russian regular forces playing a central part) MORE DETAILS BELOW
Not much subtlety there.
Yet, somehow, the U.S. has managed to convince the people of the U.S. and other Western countries that Russia is the bad boy that is out of control and must be stopped.
Despite all the above, Russia remained stoic and sought continually to keep a lid on the situation. It did, however, state firmly that the “red line” would be if Ukraine were to go nuclear, becoming a direct threat to Moscow. That would not be tolerated.
Indeed, this was a sober heads-up to any sensible country that the one thing that must not happen would be for Ukraine to go nuclear. After all, once that Pandora’s Box was opened, the last barrier to possible nuclear war would be crossed.
For eight years, Russia had been goaded again and again by the West, yet they did not take the bait. Then, in February of 2022, the President(puppet) of Ukraine announced his intent to make Ukraine a nuclear country at the annual Munich Security Conference.
Five days later, Russia invaded Ukraine. Immediately, the U.S. propaganda arm went into operation, and for months, even as Ukraine was consistently losing the war, at every turn, the Western media renewed its claims that the war was turning; that Russia was faltering, and the heroes of Ukraine were beating back the Great Bear.
But all the above is old news. So why, at this juncture, should we be reviewing it?
Well, its continued significance is that NATO (or the U.S. – they are virtually interchangeable at this point) has, from the beginning, behaved recklessly with the prospect of nuclear conflict.
Are they mad? Or are they so foolish as to think that they have some sort of “edge” in a nuclear conflict? Or do they see this as a game of one-upmanship in which the only significant concern is which antagonist has the greater bluster?
We can only speculate as to the answer to this quandary. But, setting this aside, we should question:
- a) what is the likelihood that the West would be so foolhardy as to push the button
- b) what would the outcome look like?
As to the first question, considering that it’s now becoming increasingly evident that the West has been misrepresenting the progress of the war; that the trained Azov forces are spent, and replacements cannot be trained fast enough to go against the experienced Russian forces, the U.S. is going to have to come up with another plan… and it will need to be something dramatic.
At this point, the one card they have not played is the nuke card.
They’ve claimed that the Russians have been either firing on or causing explosions in the Zaporizhzhya nuclear plant that they have held for some time. In essence, they’re being accused of bombing themselves in a facility that has long since been taken.
At this point, not many listeners are buying this explanation. So, what do they have left in their toolbox?
I’ve long felt that, as an end-run, what the West might do would rely on an old favorite technique – a false flag attack. Create a narrative and videos of an attack on, say, Kyiv by Russia with a small nuclear warhead. Then announced that the warhead had been fired, killing hundreds of thousands. Then let loose the pre-prepared media blitz and invoke Article 5, justifying nuclear warfare.
It just might turn the tide of sympathy. But it would also open a door that could not once again be closed.
For decades, both Russia and the U.S. have had large numbers of nukes aimed at each other, with a system of timed releases. Once the first button is pushed, interrupting the progression is complex.
So, as to that second question – “What would a nuclear war look like?” there are many studies, but Princeton produced the most illustrative one I’m familiar with. It’s called Plan A.
What I can’t stop thinking about nuclear wars is the fact that only “WE” have to die, and not those who decide to wage wars and atrocities. They would mostly be safe in their special bunkers and locations.Sean Carter
It begins with a random single release in Eastern Europe and demonstrates the sizes and numbers of nuclear warheads, along with the release patterns.
It shows the trajectories and, in addition, offers diameters representing the degree of devastation by each missile.
The smaller nukes would cover all of Europe, leaving very little intact. Then the larger transatlantic nukes would take over – the state-of-the-art Sarmat missiles. Sarmat has the capacity to elude anti-missile defense systems. It travels at five times the speed of sound, weighs more than 200 tonnes, and each one has multiple breakaway warheads.
The West has nothing like it.
So, what would the outcome be?
Well, each major US city would be targeted with multiple ICBMs, each big enough to destroy it. Most of the U.S. would be carpeted with other ICBMs. The U.S. would be destroyed within a few hours. An estimated 90 million people would be killed initially.
Those at ground zero would be vaporized. Those on the periphery of a bomb could escape if they were to get to a concrete shelter very quickly. They would then need to remain sealed up for weeks, if not longer until the majority of the fallout had settled. It would be a gamble when exiting the building would be safe.
The northern border of the U.S. would be destroyed, taking in Canadian border cities, such as Vancouver and Toronto. The southern border with Mexico would also go.
Next would be the movement of fallout.
Interesting Sites NukeMap and Misslemap
As the video shows, those who live in or near a direct target would have no hope, but as can be seen, there are locations outside the U.S. that are not targeted at all. Those locations that have no strategic advantage would not be targeted. So, if you were located in, say, Jamaica, you would not be hit, but, just as importantly, the Caribbean weather system – the trade winds – would carry any northern fallout away from you, as would the Gulf Stream.
Better still, the world is separated at the Equator by two weather systems that do not mix. As a result, the fallout in the north will be unlikely to travel to the south.
If you’re located in South America, there are very few likely targets. It’s unknown whether, say, Rio de Janeiro or Buenos Aires would be targeted, but if not, South America may be the best place to be in the Western Hemisphere.
If anything, Europe and the Middle East would fare worse than North America.
Finally, there is the question of nuclear winter. No one can know whether this would last months or years and whether it would be localized or global.
Nuclear war is not a certainty, yet the West has been dangerously rattling sabers as though they are invincible and only others can be destroyed. This is entirely false.
We cannot be sure that nuclear war will be undertaken, but if so, it will be quick. There will be no time to create an escape plan. You must already be in a location that you deem to be as safe as possible.
Editor’s Note: This will be the most turbulent decade in U.S.U.S. history…
The 2020s will be more dangerous than the 1930s, the 1940s, and even the 1860s.
That’s because severe crises are brewing on multiple fronts and converging.
The whole system will have a complete reset and soon.
It could be the BIGGEST thing since the founding of the USA.
by Jeff Thomas
If nuclear war does happen, these are some of the people to blame.
“No Democrats and only 57 Republicans voted against a spending package to send $40 billion — $40 BILLION — to Ukraine. More than even the massive amount Biden requested.”
Full List Of Every Member Of Congress Who Voted Yes
Republicans in the House of Representatives overwhelmingly joined Democrats in voting for an additional $40 billion in aid to Ukraine. Only 57 conservatives oppose the move as Americans suffer at home under crushing inflation and oppressive leftist policies.
Critics slammed Republicans for supporting the bill given the multiple crises Americans face at home, including a failing supply chain, soaring gas and food prices, shortages, the border, abortion, and other issues. However, the final vote was 368 to 57, with 149 Republicans voting in favor of the bill.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene blasted the bill being passed when mothers can’t even find baby formula for their hungry children.
“Stop funding regime change & money laundering scams!” she declared in a passionate House floor speech. “The American ppl do not support paying for constant U.S. involvement in foreign affairs while our gov fails our own country!”
The legislation includes $6 billion for security assistance which includes training, equipment, weapons, logistical support, supplies, and services for military and national security forces in Ukraine. It also includes $900 million for refugee support services such as housing, language classes, and trauma services for individuals fleeing Ukraine, according to The Hill.
Approximately $8.7 billion of the funds allotted in the legislation will go to the Economic Support Fund “to respond to emergent needs in Ukraine,” including budget support and countering human trafficking.
No one is better at laundering money than D.C.
The package also allocates $4.365 billion to the U.S. Agency for International Development for emergency food assistance given to individuals experiencing hunger due to the war.
Additionally, the legislation includes $8.7 billion to restock the U.S. supply of equipment and allocates $11 billion to funding for the presidential drawdown authority.