Remember back in the days of mean Tweets and $2 gas, the Left was saying that President Trump was going to start a nuclear war?

That turned out to be another case of projection.

Here are some things to consider.

The Ukrainian President is begging NATO to preemptively nuke Russia.


I joked about this earlier, but the Huffington Post published an article titled Could A Small Nuclear War Reverse Global Warming?


Then there is this news from today from The Hill:

US purchases $290 million of drug for use in radiological and nuclear emergencies

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) says it has spent $290 million on a drug to treat radiation sickness in the event of a nuclear emergency.

The HHS Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response announced in a Tuesday release that it bought the drug Nplate from Amgen USA Inc. “as part of long-standing, ongoing efforts to be better prepared to save lives following radiological and nuclear emergencies.”

That seems sudden…

This feels like we’re being primed for a small nuclear war.

Joe Biden really wanted to be the second coming of FDR.

One of the longstanding myths of American 3is that WWII got us out of the Great Depression.

What if Biden and his think tank are trying to cause WWIII to pull us out of the Great Recession?

I’m going to keep watching the news but if I start to see articles on how a little nuclear war could fix various economic problems, you can put money on them trying to start a nuclear war.



Yup, we’re gonna get nuked.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

4 thoughts on “We’re gonna get nuked – updated”
  1. Time to stock up on mutant repellent! Mine’s supposed to be arriving tomorrow.

    As for the saber-rattling over Nord Stream: a key plot element here is that (if the info I’ve seen the last couple of days is correct) the new, Russia-free Baltic Pipe came on line the day after the explosions instead of later in the year as planned – and it’ll replace the Nord Stream gas and then some. First guess was the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth blowing up the competing pipelines, but on reflection the Russians had to know their pipelines were about to become irrelevant, so why not blow them up and blame the West? (Assuming of course that the explosions were intentional and not, as Lawdog suggested, the result of Russian bumbling.)

    This all brings to mind the evolution of warfare as explained by Douglas Adams.
    Retribution: I’m going to kill you because you killed my brother.
    Anticipation: I’m going to kill you because I killed your brother.
    Diplomacy: I’m going to kill my brother and then kill you on the pretext that your brother did it.

  2. A limited exchange would allow the .gov to declare an endless ’emergency’ and push through all the measures they want for ‘climate change’ etc.

    1. Permanent emergency with the plans already in place? Check.
      Kill off a sizable percentage of the population? Bonus!
      And the climate prescriptions are the same regardless of whether we’re fighting Global Warming or Nuclear Winter. Convenient, isn’t it?

      Afterthought: if you’ve already bugged out, and have a nice place in the country with a well-stocked basement? Surely you can accommodate a dozen or so refugees from the Big City. Think FEMA might have access to records of who’s been using their credit cards to buy mass quantities of shelf-stable food?

  3. One problem with a limited nuclear exchange, from the Left’s point of view, is that it would likely damage their voter base more than the conservatives.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.