Come and Join the Union State of Russia and Belarus to get Nuclear weapons!

[Bureau]

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko's recent proposal to offer nuclear weapons to nations considering joining the Union State of Russia and Belarus has been covered by every media outlet.

Obviously! Nuclear weapons are a controversial topic, and their possession by a country provides them with a shadow security. The best example is North Korea.

Wait a minute! Isn't Moscow getting bombed by Ukrainian drones? A few days or month back Putin's office was attacked by a few drones. This is happening after Russia having the second biggest Nuclear arsenal in its disposal.

I am assuming that Alexander Lukashenko do not have advisors who have the potential to understand the present situation on the ongoing war. They forgot that Nuclear missiles no longer have the advantage as they used to have a few decades back.


What are your thoughts on Lukashenko's proposal?

Thanks.

[1715485416]

1715485416

[1715485416]

1715485416

[1715485416]

1715485416

[1715485416]

1715485416

[Hispo]

Obviously, I think that any proposal involving the wide access to mass destruction weapons is completely unnecessary and dangerous. It may be a sample of the desperation he could be feeling, seeing the Ukrainian army has not been so easy to defeat as the anticipated...

Also, was it confirmed that those droned that alledgely hit the Kremlin were part of a plot to assassinate Putin? It sounds rather daring, if you ask me. We are supposed to look to step down the conflict, a political assassination would make things worse very fast.

[BADecker]

There are those who think that nukes are fake. They think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed by tons and tons of TNT to fake the nuke story.

Then there are those who are saying that God uses angels (aliens) to stop nuke blasts from happening. God stops the nukes from blasting. So, we can't go to nuclear war even if we tried.

Back in the 1960s and earlier, nuclear scientists literally handled small amounts of plutonium without any protection. Small amounts like 5 pounds at a time. They say that nuclear materials aren't all that dangerous, and that the government advertised that they were dangerous to drive fear into everybody for their own purposes.

So, give everybody nukes, so that the truth comes out. They aren't dangerous for us or nations at all!

[Stalker22]

There are those who think that nukes are fake. They think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed by tons and tons of TNT to fake the nuke story.
~

Ah, yes, the ever-thriving community of conspiracy theorists. It never ceases to amaze me how imaginative some can be in crafting alternative explanations for historical events. 

I know you were probably being sarcastic, but if someone really thinks that nuclear weapons do not exist - how do we explain the existence of nuclear power plants and nuclear-powered generators? They are using nuclear reactions to generate a whole bunch of heat, which is then converted into electricity. And let us not forget about the Chernobyl disaster. So yeah, there is some real-world evidence that makes it pretty hard to deny the existence and impact of nuclear technology.

[BADecker]

There are those who think that nukes are fake. They think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed by tons and tons of TNT to fake the nuke story.
~

Ah, yes, the ever-thriving community of conspiracy theorists. It never ceases to amaze me how imaginative some can be in crafting alternative explanations for historical events. 

I know you were probably being sarcastic, but if someone really thinks that nuclear weapons do not exist - how do we explain the existence of nuclear power plants and nuclear-powered generators? They are using nuclear reactions to generate a whole bunch of heat, which is then converted into electricity. And let us not forget about the Chernobyl disaster. So yeah, there is some real-world evidence that makes it pretty hard to deny the existence and impact of nuclear technology.

However, the question regarding if nukes are dangerous isn't sure. Why? Unless you are personally involved with nuke danger, and know for a fact by getting burned, how do you know that the whole thing isn't partially fake?

But if you have gotten burned by nukes personally, how do the rest of us know that you are telling the truth? Maybe you are paid by government to fake it.

[cabron]

There are those who think that nukes are fake. They think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed by tons and tons of TNT to fake the nuke story.
~

Ah, yes, the ever-thriving community of conspiracy theorists. It never ceases to amaze me how imaginative some can be in crafting alternative explanations for historical events.  

I know you were probably being sarcastic, but if someone really thinks that nuclear weapons do not exist - how do we explain the existence of nuclear power plants and nuclear-powered generators? They are using nuclear reactions to generate a whole bunch of heat, which is then converted into electricity. And let us not forget about the Chernobyl disaster. So yeah, there is some real-world evidence that makes it pretty hard to deny the existence and impact of nuclear technology.

However, the question regarding if nukes are dangerous isn't sure. Why? Unless you are personally involved with nuke danger, and know for a fact by getting burned, how do you know that the whole thing isn't partially fake?

But if you have gotten burned by nukes personally, how do the rest of us know that you are telling the truth? Maybe you are paid by government to fake it.

Of course its dangerous it why Hiroshima or Cherynobyl is vacated by the community.

This nuclear technology should have been share to all countries actually but seem suppressed for keeping 3rd world countries poor. Everyone could have low electricity cost. But then any country that has nuclear power plant also has the technology to create nukes. Thats why.

Lukashenko however is fastforwarding this nuke war. I would only assume they choose which leaders can have them. Having a nuke makes a country powerful but also makes this war fairer.

In the history, Rus countries have not drop any nukes to anyone though.
  

[BADecker]

~

However, the question regarding if nukes are dangerous isn't sure. Why? Unless you are personally involved with nuke danger, and know for a fact by getting burned, how do you know that the whole thing isn't partially fake?

But if you have gotten burned by nukes personally, how do the rest of us know that you are telling the truth? Maybe you are paid by government to fake it.

Of course its dangerous it why Hiroshima or Cherynobyl is vacated by the community.

This nuclear technology should have been share to all countries actually but seem suppressed for keeping 3rd world countries poor. Everyone could have low electricity cost. But then any country that has nuclear power plant also has the technology to create nukes. Thats why.

Lukashenko however is fastforwarding this nuke war. I would only assume they choose which leaders can have them. Having a nuke makes a country powerful but also makes this war fairer.

In the history, Rus countries have not drop any nukes to anyone though.
  

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying nukes are not dangerous. What I am saying is that the proof for it might be the dangerous thing.

What if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were TNT explosions, and the top secret government stuff in WW2 was the advertising that it was nukes? What if the Jap government is going along with the US government and is simply lying to keep Japanese people out of the areas.

Do you know for a fact that there were nukes used in WW2? If you do, how do you know? Do you simply believe your commanders who told you the lie? Or did you actually, personally get burned by nuclear material?

Don't get me wrong. Maybe there is no lie in the idea that nukes are dangerous. But how does anybody know... and especially since there are people who worked on nukes who have said that the dangers are way less than they are advertised to be?

[cabron]

How many tinfoil hat are you using?
The Proud Samurais will not want someone dictating to them what they can and can't do, but thats where they are now. Balancing their act not getting too close to China yet also agreeing all the time to US.

Is Putin also working together with countries with warheads?

We might find out how dangerous Nukes are when WW3 come, Victoria Nuland says it could happen this July 11 right?

[Zlantann]

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko's recent proposal to offer nuclear weapons to nations considering joining the Union State of Russia and Belarus has been covered by every media outlet.

Obviously! Nuclear weapons are a controversial topic, and their possession by a country provides them with a shadow security. The best example is North Korea.

Wait a minute! Isn't Moscow getting bombed by Ukrainian drones? A few days or month back Putin's office was attacked by a few drones. This is happening after Russia having the second biggest Nuclear arsenal in its disposal.

I am assuming that Alexander Lukashenko do not have advisors who have the potential to understand the present situation on the ongoing war. They forgot that Nuclear missiles no longer have the advantage as they used to have a few decades back.


What are your thoughts on Lukashenko's proposal?

Thanks.

Sometimes I wonder why this world is unequal. Nations are given certain privileges that others don't have access to. Why would only a few nations be given the authority to own some dangerous weapons while others will have to worship them to get protection? My country is facing several attacks from terrorist groups and we have to rely on some nations to buy arms to defeat them. We can produce some of these weapons but the arms sector is controlled by some nations which ensures that developing nations rely on them for support. If we want peace in this world let every nation destroy all their nukes or let every nation be given the privilege to own some. If you know I own what you have, there will be restraints.

I don't see this comment by Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko as a threat, it might be a legitimate promise. Russia is desperately seeking more partners and anything can be offered to achieve this goal. Russian territory has been under attack and the war in Ukraine is not going as planned, the current situation can breed unexpected escalation. It could get to the extent of careless distribution of nuclear weapons. The war in Ukraine is a threat to global peace that's why we need peace.

[Kavelj22]

This is another piece of news that proves Russia's involvement in the Ukrainian war and its inability to continue the war on its own, given the severe sanctions imposed on it and the unexpected reaction of the Ukrainian army, which succeeds in delivering painful blows to it, reaching the extent of targeting the Kremlin with drones, which can be considered a bold step.

The statements of the Belarusian president are irresponsible and directly in Russia's interest to expand its alliance. Just as it accepted the installation of missile launchers carrying nuclear warheads on its soil in order to make itself a nuclear military target.
The Belarusian president speaks for Putin within the framework of the policy of complete submission to Russia and the lack of independence of decision-making.

[BADecker]

How many tinfoil hat are you using?
The Proud Samurais will not want someone dictating to them what they can and can't do, but thats where they are now. Balancing their act not getting too close to China yet also agreeing all the time to US.

Is Putin also working together with countries with warheads?

We might find out how dangerous Nukes are when WW3 come, Victoria Nuland says it could happen this July 11 right?

Who needs tin foil hats when nukes aren't dangerous? You believe in nuke dangers simply because somebody told you. It's a good thing somebody doesn't try to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge for a hundred bucks. Or did you buy it already?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5454764.msg62344096#msg62344096

[Stalker22]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying nukes are not dangerous. What I am saying is that the proof for it might be the dangerous thing.

What if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were TNT explosions, and the top secret government stuff in WW2 was the advertising that it was nukes? What if the Jap government is going along with the US government and is simply lying to keep Japanese people out of the areas.

Do you know for a fact that there were nukes used in WW2? If you do, how do you know? Do you simply believe your commanders who told you the lie? Or did you actually, personally get burned by nuclear material?

Don't get me wrong. Maybe there is no lie in the idea that nukes are dangerous. But how does anybody know... and especially since there are people who worked on nukes who have said that the dangers are way less than they are advertised to be?

Well, that is an interesting theory, but by the same argument, how can we really be sure that it is even possible to cause such destruction with TNT or some other type of explosive? I have never personally experienced an explosion of that magnitude, so I cannot be certain. Instead, I rely on the credibility of historians, scientists, and eyewitness testimonies, which provide well-documented evidence. It's worth noting that there were individuals who experienced that horrific event firsthand and survived long enough to tell the tale.

[BADecker]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying nukes are not dangerous. What I am saying is that the proof for it might be the dangerous thing.

What if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were TNT explosions, and the top secret government stuff in WW2 was the advertising that it was nukes? What if the Jap government is going along with the US government and is simply lying to keep Japanese people out of the areas.

Do you know for a fact that there were nukes used in WW2? If you do, how do you know? Do you simply believe your commanders who told you the lie? Or did you actually, personally get burned by nuclear material?

Don't get me wrong. Maybe there is no lie in the idea that nukes are dangerous. But how does anybody know... and especially since there are people who worked on nukes who have said that the dangers are way less than they are advertised to be?

Well, that is an interesting theory, but by the same argument, how can we really be sure that it is even possible to cause such destruction with TNT or some other type of explosive? I have never personally experienced an explosion of that magnitude, so I cannot be certain. Instead, I rely on the credibility of historians, scientists, and eyewitness testimonies, which provide well-documented evidence. It's worth noting that there were individuals who experienced that horrific event firsthand and survived long enough to tell the tale.

The difference is that everything necessary for making and using TNT is available info. It is easily understandable. Using small amounts of explosive chemical is something everybody can do. It's like taking a shotgun shell apart, and testing the explosive qualities of the powder and the cap.

Nobody is allowed to take some plutonium home with him to test. And most people would be scared to do it because of all the media saying that it is bad. So, nobody can tell for himself if U234 or plutonium are dangerous. You simply have to believe it... or not.

Yikes! The Geiger counter is blowing its top. That stuff must be dangerous. Or, who has ignored the Geiger counter to see if that stuff really is dangerous?

[coinmanhere]

The level of hypocrisy in western people is shocking. Why are you so fired up dude calm down where the #uck are your morals when Palestinians are killed or other countless genocide by West. It's a shame all these #ucking morals are because the people involved this time are white and Christian

[yazher]

This may be their only way to expand their territories, and they also wanted to install some powerful, potent weapons in whatever countries joined. Still, I think this won't be possible because once a country joins them, their enemy will go to attack it. It will be hard for them because we know that sanctions will be brutal for the other countries suffering because of their economy. I wonder if there will be just a country to accept that offer, and no matter what their opponent will do, it won't matter to them.

[BADecker]

^^^ Yes, it might be one of the only ways to expand their territories... now. Before the sanctions, and for the last 30 years since the collapse of the USSR, Russia has started to play the territorial gain game like the US and Nato. Then the sanctions came, attempting to keep Russia from out-playing the game that the US was doing. So, now Russia has to do the US game any way they can, possibly even sales of nuclear arms around the world. And, they are succeeding.


President of Russia Publicly Announces Conditions where Russia WILL BOMB NATO Bases


https://halturnerradioshow.com/index.php/en/news-page/world/president-of-russia-publicly-announces-conditions-where-russia-will-bomb-nato-bases
President Putin made clear he knows the West is planning on supplying fighter jets to Ukraine, and that the US insists the F-16's be nuclear capable.

He pointed out that those jets, especially U.S. F-16's, require very large and complicated maintenance, which cannot now be done in Ukraine without fear of being hit with Russian missiles. Thus it would be necessary for the planes to use bases that are presently safe.

Therefore, he said, if those fighter jets takeoff from NATO bases outside Ukraine, and enter Ukraine for battle, Russia will not be able to know if those planes are armed with Tactical nuclear bombs and will have to assume THEY ARE.
...

[be.open]

Meanwhile, Sweden is preparing for a Russian nuclear attack. Chief of Staff of the Swedish Armed Forces Mikael Klasson believes that "Russia has an unpleasant habit of doing what it says."

Apparently the Western world is too accustomed to hypocrisy and lies, if the habit of telling the truth seems unpleasant there.