Yes, nuclear weapons are real. There are heavily documented testing series, by multiple countries. There are radioisotopes which did not occur naturally prior to nuclear weapons testing, but are ubiquitous now (Strontium 90 is one). There are documented effects of testing and its resultant fallout on people, animals, and the environment. Specifically, the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did well-documented damage to people and infrastructure.

Certainly its possible that videos and documents could be faked. But how are you going to fake the mass introduction of man-made radioisotopes into the environment? Even if you could, why? Are you going to fake the decades long Hiroshima population studies as well?

Can we see a mini nuke in action?

If you were in Las Vegas in the 1950s, you could see the nuke tests on a regular basis in the distance.

No weapons are real. They only have power over you if you believe in them. Therefore, my best advice to avoid meeting a tragic, untimely, violent end is to avoid believing in knives, guns, bombs, and candlesticks.

we are all immune to bullets and it is a miracle!!

No shit? But your question in OP was brilliant?

If you have to ask, convincing you would be impossible since you've already discarded so much critical information and logical reasoning. This of course assumes you aren't just here to make this sub look bad.

It's use and effects in Japan. The video of that. The lasting legacy. The stories by those who survived it. The increased rates of birth defects. The development of nuclear power based on the same principals. The irradiated test sites all over the world. The sudden Japanese surrender. The literally millions of people who would have to be in on the lie. The fact that many many millions more confirm the scientific validity of the premise and that they too would have to be in on it. Shall I continue?

Aaaaand thanks for proving my previous post spot on.

This BS is exactly why I didn't want to respond. Whatever I cite you just say "Well it could be a hoax" or "That's irrelevant", "It's not proof proof".

I believe you are an AI. Prove me wrong.

Edit: Oh, and of course Santa Clause exists. Prove me wrong.

The sun doesn't exist though. Prove me wrong.

Don't believe all you want. Look like an idiot, I don't care.

I am unwilling to face scrutiny that bears an impossible level of evidence. Anything I say, you can come up with an explanation against, forget the fact that it quickly reaches the absurd.

Is the earth flat? Yes? No? Convince me. Check out /r/theearthisflat for a good comparison to how tortured your logic must be to not accept evidence for nukes being real.

There's scrutiny and there's contrarianism. You deny that personal accounts are evidence. You deny that millions of pages of research linking nuclear detonations to cancer and birth defects taken with the increase in such in Japan is evidence. You're not scrutinizing, you are discarding out of hand which speaks to my original comment.

How do I explain to you that eyewitness testimony, scientific consensus, medical data, historical realities and 10 other things are evidence without starting at A is for apple?

You are not lacking in logic, but by that which you are use, and the standards of "evidence" it implies, you could witness a nuclear blast first hand and still not be convinced.

~It's use and effects in Japan is not evidence that it exists.

So yeah, that addresses your first two "No I didn't"s

I never listed "Japan being bombed" as evidence. I listed the effects related to radiation, eyewitness accounts and speed of their surrender. Hell, they were bombed for years.

Saying that something has a legacy is not proof.

The problem here is that Freddy Kreuger's legacy is not tangible beyond film accepted as fiction. Eyewitness testimony, medical results, radiation levels, devastation patterns, shadows burned into walls et. are tangible and not fiction, not because I say so, but because these things are there or at least recorded and corroborated in the extreme.

There's a lot more but you did deny the two things you deny denying, so I don't see the point in formulating long winded, cogent arguments. I just get the point at which something becomes evidence for you.

The essential problem is that you are not asking for evidence you are asking for proof:

I do understand. However, this is not proof it is real, either.

So I go back to prove anything. You simply can't. There is not a single thing that can be proven to someone contrarian enough. That's why the justice system uses 'proven beyond a reasonable doubt' because someone could always come up with some essentially impossible thing otherwise.

As far as 'beyond a reasonable doubt', 99.99% of people with any grasp of history would consider the existence of nuclear weapons to be proven.

Well, aside from eyewitness accounts, there's video (I believe of the explosion) and certainly of the aftermath. There's the accounts of the hundreds of people involved in retrofitting and loading the two planes as well as of their crews, records of Japanese communications saying that the entire city had been wiped out by one plane, probably other stuff. The rest would be after the fact. Radiation sickness, decades of high birth defects and miscarriages in the area, measures of radiation at the sites and a really eery one is shadows burned into walls; more I'm sure.

I asked this of one other commenters, but I'm curious about what your response would be as well - what about the fact that the atomic tests were easily visible to the many thousands of people in Las Vegas in the 50s? They were common enough to even be a tourist attraction for a time...

No problem. Here is an article I found discussing it.

Thanks. It's something I wasn't even aware of until your question prompted me to go looking. I'm just glad you are more reasonable about this than some other folks in this subreddit. High-priest-of-slack is one in particular that seems convinced that everything is a conspiracy, and does a lot of handwaving of his own when presented with evidence that goes against his believes. Notice how he hasn't responded to the same article link I provided you? Typical behavior for him and others in here.

The burden of proof is on you to show they are fake. You not believeing in them makes no difference to the nuke wielding governments of the world.

What do you believe then?

Do you believe they don't exist? If so, presumably you also believe all the nuclear weapons are fake?

Or do you believe they don't exist, but all the nuclear weapons are real? Because that's illogical.

Or you you believe they do exist?

This is not to assert my beliefs. This about questioning them.

Fair enough. Well as I believe nuclear weapons are real:

For you to believe nuclear weapons don't exist, it would follow that you'd have to also believe nuclear weapons are fake - would you agree with that?

There was a reason I made the step, but if that's the way you want to put it, OK.

I believe nuclear weapons are real and not fake. If you believe the same thing the discussion is pointless. If you believe they don't exist and are fake, I'll carry on.

Then your question is rhetorical?

Well, at the rate things are going.. We'll know soon enough.

http://wereblog.com/sumitery-taniguchi-nagasaki-atomic-bomb-survivor-shows-scars

Ask this guy if theyre real.

You should go play with some fire if youre uneducated in its effect.

Because if you have any education above a 1st grade reading level then you already knew the answer to your question. Youre attempting to get an emotional rise for whatever reason you've justified within your mind. Its repulsive.

Critical analysis doesnt involve questions of such common knowledge, Professor.

You know what youre doing. Stop lying to yourself. You know damn well fire causes scarring. If your inquiry was meaningful than you wouldve reworded it such as "what about to prospect of them being firebombed instead."

You know exactly what youre doing and I see right thru it.

Edit: look, im with you on the theory of tptb lying to us about nukes, like they lie about almost everything else. But youve gotta see how mindbendingly ignorant you initial question to me was. Sorry for getting so pissed but damn dude.

Im all about questions. Your rhetoric struck me as something else. Let us continue our inquiries shall we.

Look, im not the only one on this thread that didnt catch your vibe on this. Carry on.

Then lets just carry on with the task at hand. Any progress to a conclusion yet? This is a serious inquiry, im not being facecious.

It is an interesting reaction on both sides. Ive honestly never questioned it until now but then I ask myself how could a generation of people been effected so much by fire. Generations after the initial bombing, cases of birth defects and genetic mutations & all kinds of insane things I cant even being to ponder upon. But what a lie it would be, to tell the masses that those in power have the ability to basically vaporize the very elements within our bodies and our surroundings. Kick in a few Terminator™ movies for a good foundation of fear (aside from countless close calls with other countries) and hot damn, that'll keep em in line for sure.

Like I said tho, ive really never put any thought into questioning the validity of their stories

I doubt the whole claim as well. There is power in keeping the population in fear.

Lol how's it feel to be so paranoid and deluded?

I won't say paranoid and deluded. I'm a critical thinker and it actually feels great!

You won't say? Whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night

Good point! I mean yeah we have anecdotal evidence, but that's about it. It's really easy to deceive people, Its not a stretch to think that powerful and wealthy people do it all the time.

I think it is very likely that they are not real.

Nuclear weapons are something that is very core to most people's understanding of the world. Fake nukes is too big a lie to possibly be true. If this can be a lie, then they would have to throw out too much of what they consider to be "solid truth". For instance the fact that so many nations claim to have weapons programs. Would not some nation out the fraud? In order for this to be possible the power structure of the world must be very different from how it is pictured by most people. So the idea is rejected.

Physicist Galen Winsor who worked at, and helped design, nuclear power plants in Hanford, Washington; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Morris, Illinois, San Jose, California; Wimington, New Jersey had some interesting things to say about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejCQrOTE-XA

I love how you;re getting downvoted for telling the truth! Thats how you know you're right. When blind ignorant masses disagree with you.

1+1=42

No. WW2 PROPAGANDA that doesn't seem to die

Read the whole sentence.

you are nitpicking

Understood. Sorry for being snappy. I'm like 80% sure nukes do not exist.

Nuclear weapons are another Freemasonic hoax, one of the many false beliefs conditioned into you by the globalists.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were firebombed, just like Tokyo and Dresden. A close examination of the photographic evidence shows obvious photo-manipulation (to the Photoshop generation) and the other photos show the results of an extended firebombing campaign (wooden structures destroyed, stone structures standing).

Radioisotopes can be found because the US Government was testing the efficacy of dirty bombs with nuclear material, trying to create a more deadly weapon.

Nuclear weapons are pseudoscience that a little knowledge of nuclear physics can dispel. Neutrons released from fission are moving so fast that without a moderator to slow them down to thermal energies they are very unlikely to be re-absorbed by fissile nuclei where they could cause more fissions. Thus the chain reaction cannot be sustained without the presence of a moderator.

The government scientists handwave this away, claiming they have a 'special geometry' that somehow not only invalidates this but also creates half-dome explosions. That 'special geometry' is a national security secret, so anyone telling you that they fully understand how nuclear weapons work is lying, because it depends on national security secrets.

From SL-1 to Chernobyl to 3 Mile Island, the result of a mass of nuclear fuel undergoing an uncontrollable chain reaction is meltdown: the fuel itself literally melts, the vessel containing it melts, and the secondary containment boundary explodes from steam pressure. In every nuclear accident in history, there is no 'half-dome' explosion, no mushroom cloud, no ruins where everything wooden is burned and everything stone is still standing. Those are Hollywood fear fantasies of a magical superweapon ideal for controlling a gullible and traumatized public.

If you're concerned about real weapons, the American empire proudly displays its research into swarms of flying killer robots, and the current President and Nobel Peace Prize winner has launched over 390 covert drone strikes in his first five years of presidency, killing over 2,400 people. US Veterans Urge Drone Operators to Refuse Orders to Fly Surveillance and Attack Missions.

If they were a giant hoax, why were they easily visible to the many tourists in Las Vegas back in the 1950s? You focus so much on how the videos were supposedly faked, but what about the thousands of people who saw the mushroom clouds with their own eyes?

Edit: What a (non) surprise - when confronted with inconvenient facts, /u/high-priest-of-slack is a coward and runs away.

I started reading with an open mind, knowing deep down this was going to turn stupid. I was not wrong.

When someone gives you evidence for nuclear weapons being real, you counter argument everything. Fine to a point, I suppose. But when someone gives evidence to say they don't exist, you just agree. You do not apply the same type of thinking/criticism. I think your mind is made up mate.

Okay dude

SAVED! I love it.

Look, im not the only one on this thread that didnt catch your vibe on this. Carry on.