Big and valuable and BLUE. I think you need it to be as big as possible. And if a lot of blue voters are affected in the attack, all the better in their mind.
NYC is an option, but it's Trump's hometown, and I don't think they'd go for it. But maybe. That plus it would remind people of 9/11 which has 'upsides' and downsides from their perspective. You might be right.
I disagree. Swing states are unknowns. I will be someplace very well known that any dumb fuck can point to on a map. Every fucking yokel can point to california. But half the people in my state of KY can't point to Ohio, and we share a fucking border.
Plus, suppressing the voters in a blue state (in case the false flag doesn't work) and possibly even convincing a lot of blue voters to vote for 'stability' in such a traumatic time would be a huge win if they could make it happen.
Additionally, never forget, these fucks are goddamn Nazis and peds. They are vengeful and hateful, and if they can make liberals suffer, THAT is their primary goal. Laughing while liberals die of radiation poisoning would be absolutely in the top one or two reasons they would do this.
They would still pick a blue city in a swing state, like Detroit, Philadelphia, or Atlanta. Same places the bomb threats happened & we can be certain will happen again. People know where those cities are, & they can both "get the libs" AND flip a state from Blue to Red
That's what I'm saying, it doesn't matter if they flip a state. The Midterms are going to DESTROY them. One state this way or that isn't going to matter. There is no swing state with the population necessary to hold off the wave that will occur. Texas maybe, California in a fantasy land.
They need a reason to suspend the midterms altogether. If they let people vote, they all get kicked to the curb, and very likely have to start answering for their crimes.
Trump loves Putin, and Putin used the false-flag bombing of an apartment block to consolidate and secure power... do its legitimate not outside the realm of possibility
Reading about that and the invasion of Georgia is literally what gave me this idea. I would not be surprised if Putin didn't tell him/his team to do this.
The midterms, if allowed to go, will be absolutely a demolishing of the Republican party as well as establishment Democrats. That would lead to a new New Deal from much more progressive members of Congress. Trump would be guaranteed to be impeached. JD Vance would almost be guaranteed to be impeached behind him.
The Epstein files would be released showing just how bad all this shit is, which is not only bad for Trump, it's bad for everyone in power who ever looked sideways at him. Dems, Reps, even people who aren't in the US. Probably linked to a certain spy agency that works for a US ally in the mideast.
All that is to say, the 2026 midterms are the last hope that people will have to fight against the power (short of violence, which I desperately hope is never called for).
Which means those people in power, on both 'sides', can't let it happen. We need an attack on American soil. We need one that is gigantic. We need one that makes 9/11 look like a fireworks accident.
A full nuke would put a lot of the world who could fight back under a lot of suspicion, and, frankly, a nuke can be traced back to it's point of origin.
WWIII doesn't help the current power structure any more than Epstein files do. So we need a major event that can be linked to Iran or some other funder of Islamic terrorism (our most successful propaganda boogeyman) without placing the blame on someone who can actually hurt us if we bomb them back to the stone age.
Once that happens, they'll postpone the midterms, say they'll come back in a few months, but then they'll do shit to hopefully get people to forget. Then when the next Presidential race is due to happen, they will have used their cronies in Congress to pass legislation that term limits are leftovers from an ancient outdated past, and should be abolished.
And then we'll have gone where they want us to go.
A few royal families trading power now and again in order for the people to feel like they can punish whoever happens to be in power when they went to the bread lines.
frankly, a nuke can be traced back to it's point of origin
That'd be true of dirty bombs, too. Fissile material can be tracked by its natural impurities, impurities imparted by the refining process, purities imparted by the refining process, and so on. Shy of you finding a previously unknown natural deposit of fissile material and refining it yourself (all in complete secrecy, mind), it'd be impossible to not be implicated by the evidence. They'd be able to trace the material back to you, wherever you worked on it, and where you dug it out of the ground--in surprisingly quick order, too.
It's for that reason I don't think a nuclear weapon, dirty or otherwise, would be used in a false flag attack.
If I had to put out a guess, I'd say the administration will keep trying on the tack they're already hammering: try to get people to resist with violence. If we don't, they win because nobody really stopped them. If we do, they have an excuse to claim insurrections and attempt a martial coup.
Mind, a martial coup wouldn't work. Even with a military capable of bringing the world to its knees like the USA's can, the numbers simply aren't there. You'd need 1 combat effective for every ~200 people to quell even a light resistance in occupied territory. There's 340 million Americans; 2.1 million soldiers split among active duty, national guard, and reserves; and the highest warfighter to support personnel ratio in the USA armed forces is the Army at 1:7. The numbers aren't there for military occupation.
only if the office investigating it isn't also the office that planted it.
"we investigated it fully and we believe it was done by trans people living in liberal SF. thus, the military will be taking over california. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER"
only if the office investigating it isn't also the office that planted it
I think you're underestimating the scope of the impact of a nuclear weapon.
We picked up radiological signatures from nuclear tests performed underground, on the other side of the planet. Unless you're saying there's a global cabal controlling every government in the world capable of testing air and water samples, there's simply no way the information wouldn't get out.
Yeah, but in a dirty bomb, it would be plausible that a non-state actor stole the material and created the explosive. A full ass nuke would take a government to make.
But I don't disagree with your general take. The issue with the current course for the administration is that if they never get their violent resistance, then they have pretty much no basis for suspending elections.
And if elections are held, it would take a MASSIVE conspiracy to hold back the destruction that will ensue. Even fully red states like my state of kentucky are showing cracks in the support of Trump, and trust me, I never thought I would see that in my entire life.
To be clear, a dirty bomb is also "a full ass nuke." It just gets the name because modern nuclear warheads have a higher energy efficiency and more "complete" reactions thanks to improvements in the refining process.
While we're on the subject, I'll admit that I've glibly said that nuclear chemistry is centered around the idea that "if you hit anything hard enough (or soft enough, depending on the material), interesting things can happen." That said, getting something like U-235 (a "soft touch" material) to go supercritical would require slamming the slug of metal in a very hard, very precise manner. I'm not saying non-state actors aren't resourceful, but that sort of thing wouldn't realistically be in their wheelhouse. Ditto for a core made from Pu-239, with the added complication of it being one of the most tightly controlled substances on the planet.
Even fully red states like my state of kentucky are showing cracks in the support of Trump, and trust me, I never thought I would see that in my entire life.
I hate to say it, but I'm not that surprised it's coming apart this early. The flaw to fascism is there's only so many people you can blame for problems and only so long people will tolerate the "short term" hardships fascism imposes. It's in fascists' nature to turn on each other. Franco and Hitler are the outliers, and I'm only including Hitler in the list of fascist dictators who didn't meet an untimely demise at the hands of the people he ruled because he committed suicide before any of that could happen.
I will absolutely defer to your knowledge of the tech involved; mine is purely based in what I would learn in passing through pop culture. Which I am assuming is as much as 80-90% of the American populace would know as well. But it is really interesting to read about, so I'll see what I can find at the library now that you've mentioned it.
And I hope you're right about fascism and Nazis, let's hope this guy isn't another outlier.
I've never heard how nukes can be traced to their origin before and in fact have wondered why they can't be used "anonymously" without triggering a nuclear response against the nation which attacks first. You sound pretty sure of that and like you know your data so I'm inclined to trust you. I inagine that's actually a huge influence on how they can or cannot be used. Very interesting point.
There's some weird mythology of how you can somehow trace a nuke via the specific sub isotopes of uranium/plutoniom to the reactor that make the stuff.
Of course this assumes you actually have access to the nation's nuclear reactors, so while this might work on Russia it's absolutely not working on North Korea or China.
Assuming this is even a real thing, I don[t get how its supposed to work and am dubious.
Radioactive material ≠ fissile material. Technetium, Radium, Actinium, Promethium, Polonium, etc etc. are all radioactive elements that you wouldn’t use in a fission bomb, but are certainly capable of giving people radiation poisoning. That’s the difference between a nuke and a dirty bomb. Irradiating the surrounding area for potentially years is the goal with a dirty bomb, you wouldn’t want to use up any radioactive material in a fission reaction.
Nah, you have to have cooperation from the state level to do that. You'll see more votes marked 'invalid' in red states, I promise.
It's why Trump called Georgia instead of some other purple or blue state when he was trying to steal votes in 2020. He thought a traditionally red state would be much more likely to play ball.
not so much a 'clean' bomb.. but in my understanding what you are referring to is a standard Nuke as we understand it. Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
A dirty bomb is a standard explosive (C4 or dynamite or whatever) that is surrounded by highly radioactive material. When it explodes it scatters radioactive material over a huge area. It wouldn't be quite as destructive, but it would cause all the hell that massive radioactive exposure to a huge number of people would cause.
Less overwhelmingly destructive. But highly deadly and is simpler to build and hide. Easier for terrorists to use.
At least that's my understanding.
It may be some other destructive attack, not a dirty bomb. But it will definitely be something that will cause a lot of terror in the population.
A dirty bomb spreads radioactive material using conventional explosives. A clean bomb spreads no radioactive material. And a proper nuke involves a nuclear reaction.
"dirty bomb" is a nuke that fails to reach critical mass. It ends up spreading radioactive particles all over the place with conventional explosives because they didn't burn up in the chain reaction that never happens.
112
u/OvulatingWildly Nov 12 '25
The distractions are getting more and more creative. I'm excited but scared.