/fascist/ - Surf The Kali Yuga

>>9312 (OP) 
The sad truth is that in the event of a nuclear war, White nations suffer near total destruction while Africa, Latin America, and South Asia are spared.
Shit is fucked.
Still, better than a slow but inevitable death from immigration.

>>9315
>The sad truth is that in the event of a nuclear war, White nations suffer near total destruction while 
Unless if we built shelters 
>while Africa, Latin America, and South Asia are spared.
Shit is fucked.
A nuclear winter would cause a global starvation due to soot of the nuke bombs covering 90% of the planet’s atmosphere and thus prevent sunlight from reaching the crops and plants. Besides, they’re too poor and low iq to build a high advanced shelter to keep their own population alive. In a case of nuclear apocalypse scenario we need to invest in white-only shelters if we want to survive.

>>9312 (OP) 
Build secret underground bunkers in the countryside and stock them with supplies to support however many people you plan to cram in there for at least a year.

>>9317
Where do get the money from?

>>9318
Business fronts. Robbery. Counterfeiting. Use your imagination.

>>9312 (OP) 
A meaningless thread like this should net you a permanent ban from any fascist community. And just look at the responses
>>9317
>>9318
>>9319

>>9316
>A nuclear winter would cause a global starvation due to soot of the nuke bombs covering 90% of the planet’s atmosphere and thus prevent sunlight from reaching the crops and plants
Yeah but remember that that affects us too. We'd just need to also deal with nuclear wasteland and the death of 90% of our race.

Another problem is that we're going to come to the conclusion that the solution is bunkers. It will never leave the vague planning stage on the internet.

>>9312 (OP) 
Not really other than a vague idea about regrouping and arming ourselves ASAP to form local fiefs.

>>9318
He's not thinking this through I'm afraid. The money needed to sustain even a small population underground for a full year would be worth one mansion already. The 60s nuclear bunkers for pop and ma were never meant to be used for such a long time and people would lose their sanity doing this.

>>9330
>>9333
Do you have any better ideas? If so, go ahead.

>>9326
I think it shuod be a ban as well

>>9326
>>9342
I disagree. If anything, we should be prepared for any eventuality. Prepping for worst case scenario is the mark of an intelligent man. Besides, planning for a lawless SHTF scenario runs parallel with planning for a civil war.

>>9335
On how to survive a nuclear war? 
I don't consider nuclear war often. If it happens, it happens. It'll suck.
What really matters is forming cohesive, sustainable pro-White political organizations so we can move onto step two of Revolution: violence.
If a nuclear war happens before we have genuine organization, we will all be isolated atoms swept away by the currents of those who were already organized. If we are organized first, then we will be able to actually affect the outcome of the ensuing vacuum. 

Organization is everything.

>>9346
Realistic post. Young guys on this board better study and make relentless capital like their nonwhite competitors, You are living in survival mode, you just might not know it.

Nuclear_War_Survival_Skill_(2022_Edition_Updated)_compressed.pdf
(15MB)

ARYAN_FACT.jpg
[Hide] (470.7KB, 2324x2993) Reverse

>>9312 (OP) 
>>9316
>A nuclear winter would cause a global starvation due to soot of the nuke bombs covering 90% of the planet’s atmosphere and thus prevent sunlight from reaching the crops and plants. Besides, they’re too poor and low iq to build a high advanced shelter to keep their own population alive. In a case of nuclear apocalypse scenario we need to invest in white-only shelters if we want to survive.
Nuclear winter is false, you have fallen for a old meme perpetuated by Carl Sagan and other pop-scientists that for the purpose leaves us undefended and with nihilism. "There's no point in living after nuclear war."
There are alot of people fantasizing about nuclear war here, and it is important to douse them with a cold bucket of reality.

Nuclear winter is a myth, The US and USSR detonated literally thousands of nuclear weapons on its own soil in test towns. Both above ground and below. We never had problems with climate. The theory is flawed for several reasons.
1. It assumes modern cities will burn in firestorms, Maybe true for pre-WW2 wooden/brick structures, but flawed in modern times.
Cities are mostly built of steel and concrete, and wooden frame structures have significant fire code requirements to prevent uncontrolled burning.
Most skyscrapers burn from the material inside them, not the materials they're made with.
Just how building 7 in 9/11 collapsed after it was set on fire from large chunks of burning material from the towers, and then burned uncontrollably for 7 hours because water lines were cut from the collapse of tower 1.
2. It assumes the size of nuclear weapons are on the scale of volcanic eruptions, which are known to lower global temperatures. They are not even close in terms of size, The largest nukes in the US arsenal are adjustable 600 KT thermonuclear warheads. If you detonated all of them(3500-4500) you would certainly contaminate an environment for a long time, but not even close to the big volcanic climate changers.
3. Fallout requires ground burst weapons, an unlikely scenario as it is ineffective for damage. Most if not all will be airburst, with the fireball not likely to touch the ground. This will cause mass destruction, but will not heave much material into the mushroom cloud.

 If you are afraid, read this book. Nuclear Warfare Survival Skills.
It is free and written by a guy who wrote it while working at Oak Ridge for nuclear weapon assessment for survival. I attached both the 1999 and 2022 versions. Both are permissible to distribute.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_War_Survival_Skills
Knowledge is a balm for fear.

cee232f54718f92fb9c089e581b7e43ef58690e816fa699b5a1a79d148b5915c.jpg
[Hide] (101.1KB, 1024x512) Reverse

>>9416
This needs to be refined.
The nuclear winter as a deleterious ecological effect was grossly inflated for decades. While saying that thousands of nukes were detonated seems incorrect, we must also remember that most tests concerned very small yields as the armies progressively developed an interest into more tactical and accurate use of limited nuclear ammunition. The entire detonation of all nuclear stockpiles, old and modern, assuming they are all functional, would still be a disastrous event for entire sections of this world, but nothing we could not quickly recover from assuming most of the energy were deposited within concentrated areas. Nuclear pollution could quickly become a reality, but the creation of an upper atmospheric winter coat is a whole different phenomenon that requires far more energy and a thorough application of energy in specific ways. Detonating nuclear ordnance in the atmosphere would not contribute to the creation of that opaque veil since the energy would be absorbed by the air and would merely scorch the nearest surface area beneath the detonation locus. Fires would contribute to some degree to the creation of the veil but their duration would be limited. Assuming a general deployment of all nuclear ordnance, within one year all fires would be out. Volcanoes do create such conditions though because they are the prime natural sources of particle release in high atmosphere. In other words, deeply buried high-yield nuclear bombs would contribute to creating such effects, especially if shoved inside mountains because they represent the easiest way to have access to large stockpiles of matter that already sticks out of the ground. Throwing bombs at dormant volcanoes would also greatly increase the risk of release of particles in the air. But merely nuking cities would not generate the much vaunted nuclear winter.
>Just how building 7 in 9/11 collapsed after it was set on fire from large chunks of burning material from the towers, and then burned uncontrollably for 7 hours because water lines were cut from the collapse of tower 1.
WTC7 did NOT burn uncontrollably. I can't believe you're honestly peddling that two decades old defunct bullshit narrative.

>>9416
That doesn't make sense to me because ejecting billions of tons of dust into the atmosphere would cause global cooling.
But fine, even if that didn't happen, firestorms from nuclear war would still obliterate agriculture in the northern hemisphere. Actually, no nuclear winter probably helps niggers more because Africa would be unaffected by nuclear war.

>>9418
>WTC7 did NOT burn uncontrollably. I can't believe you're honestly peddling that two decades old defunct bullshit narrative.
He was being sarcastic.

>>9418
Going off what you said, hypothetically, if an insurgent force commandeered a facily with say 30 nukes or so, how much damage could it plausibly dish out? Would it be enough to upset the global balance of power?

>>9578
They would have to know how to launch. I would imagine it isn't as simple as storming the building and pressing a button.

>>9579
Yes, obviously. For the sake of the exercise assume they already have the know-how to use them.

>>9580
Target DC. Target New York. 15 each. get er done Then leave.

>>9581
You forgot Israel, China, Russia and Mexico.

>>9581
Bomb everywhere that does not matter aka non-farmlands aka the non-flyover states aka the coastline states. Examples: Washinton, Oregon, California, Florida, New York. Florida and California alone are of the most populated states and neither have winters and so are thus very dysgenic. They do nothing good for the world. If I had to pick three places it would be New York, Florida, and California. Politics/money processing center, retirement state, and holleywood. The most fun state to be in is probably Oregon and wrecking it kills lots of wildlife so that is one reason I'd nuke the area around Washington, especially to the left where the tress are the most dense actually left of the costline despite this 'coastline hate' it may damgae the nation more to attack the 'wild wild west' forests. No running into the woods to escape being a farmer basicallly. No more degenerate coastline states except near Virginia I guess, and Carolina can be left alone too... maybe not south though as really I'm forgetting to nuke the bible belt here. I'll just make a fun map with "x" over things I want to see turned into ash. 

Not that I really think nukes are real and if they are I dout they made as many as they say they did and if they did I bet they are mostly non-functional and even if they were nobody has the balls due to checks and balances so they wont ever get used basically. 

>>9585
Killing the US negates  three as they rely on the USA. Russia should be the one to do they bombing, but *yawn* China's economy would collapse, Israel would get Arab'd, Mexico would just fade into not being remembered as it should be just as the rest of the S. Murikan nations go unmentioned....*yawning intensifies* 

Not that I like Texas but image related if I had some nukes. 

>had to use yawndex to get an image of Princess Peach yawning as duckduckhoe is THAT BAD current year
>image won't upload
>try without yawning peach.....
>that's not it
Maybe it's the other image. Trying with text only, annoying bot is annoying. 

t.a bored (yawning) social libertarian

we_don't_need_no_water_let_the_mutha_fucka_burn.png
[Hide] (258.1KB, 753x572) Reverse

test

i-133840.jpg
[Hide] (34.2KB, 354x550) Reverse

test number two

mushroom-icon-27-4294815346.png
[Hide] (241.8KB, 2000x2000) Reverse

......I have no idea why it made me post the images seperately......

>>9585
>Israel
What does that accomplish besides emotional feelgood things?
>Mexico
Again, what does that accomplish? The problem is in America, not in Mexico. You're wasting our very limited number of hypothetical nukes. We only have 30 and many of them will get intercepted.

>China, Russia
This only makes sense from a Piercian perspective. MAYBE Russia will nuke us back and then it'd be worth it. But they might not. ZOG might backchannel them to de-escalate and then we will have wasted our nukes killing Russians while the few nukes we did send against DC are eliminated mid travel.