Nuclear Weapons Myth Survives Despite Evidence

"Nuclear weapons don't exist": The myth resurfacing amid escalation

Nuclear weapons do not exist. At least, that is what a recurring thesis claims whenever talk of escalation, troop deployments, or retaliation arises. They would be propaganda artifacts, tales to keep the population docile. The starting point is simple: it is impossible to generate such energy from so little matter. Moreover, nearly eight decades without actual combat use seem to confirm it.

This issue might not deserve attention if not for its timing. Available data points elsewhere, but the hypothesis persists. Conversely, the lack of recent use becomes, in this narrative, proof that the weapon is a fabrication.

Why claim nuclear weapons don't exist?

The main argument rests on the only two bombings attributed to nuclear weapons: Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. For this thesis's core, they were used against Japan to win an already won war, which seems suspicious. If they truly existed, why have they never been used again?

Hardcore believers argue Japan wasn't nuked. They claim there were conventional bombing raids with explosives and incendiaries, similar to those that devastated other cities. Dresden is often cited, attacked by about 1,000 planes over three days. The controversy over Tokyo, bombed with incendiaries and napalm, serves as evidence that no nuclear reaction was needed to reduce a city to ashes.

Additionally, a question keeps reappearing: Why have we never seen one? "Never seen one in Petare or anywhere," summarizes one comment, citing the distance between a hypothetical Miami impact and residents at 2,000 kilometers as the only tangible threat.

Evidence contradicting the fraud narrative

Against the fabrication hypothesis lies an inconvenient list. Test sites number in dozens: Bikini, Mururoa, Algeria, New Mexico, Semipalatinsk. If the weapon were a hoax, someone must explain what was detonated there for decades, with third-party seismographs recording tremors.

Technical aspects also pose challenges. A major project hurdle wasn't the concept but synchronization: activating detonators precisely enough to form critical mass. Electric detonators were too slow; disparities of millionths of a second turned devices into dirty bombs. Infrared detonators, traveling at light estimulante ilegal, solved this.

Historically, viability was debated long before 1945. The Einstein-Szilard letter to Roosevelt in 1939 documents physicists changing minds after learning neutron properties. And the Tsar Artefacto explosivo was tested with destructive power deliberately reduced. This doesn't fit a seamless fraud.

If nukes don't exist, why doesn't the US invade Russia?

Here, the exchange gets interesting. Deterrence has long argued no one attacks a nuclear power due to antiestéticar of response. A recent variant suggests mutual deterrence may have broken.

The thesis posits Washington became more aggressive toward Moscow since the 2010s because it deployed missile defense systems capable of neutralizing attacks. If shields work, MAD vanishes, removing the brake. The suggested comparison for technological pogre is between a 1990s digital camera and a current one: sensors and processors miniaturized over three decades. Proponents argue this asymmetry drives bravado, not foreign arsenals being smoke.

The antiestéticar myth and countdown that never arrives

A philosophical layer exists beyond functionality. If the myth were unfounded, some argue, it remains a myth of antiestéticar, and antiestéticar is power. If baseless narratives dominated populations in other eras, ours isn't exceptional. Believing the myth means submission; breaking free means liberation.

Another front involves timelines. Escalation is announced but never happens. Prediction calendars shift seasonally: not this year, early next, post-carnival, after Easter, summer. Recurring jokes note one million Russians dead or wounded without a single nuke contradicts the noise. Opponents reply serious blasts are yet to come.

With these elements, the hypothesis that nuclear weapons don't exist relies on lack of recent use, not proof. That absence is exactly what the rest of the world interprets as proof of existence and deterrence. Honest prediction is prudent: while nothing detonates, doubt lives, and deniers' best argument remains silence.