Have Tactical Nukes Already Being Used?

by William Skink

There was an explosion caught on camera in Yemen earlier this year that sparked speculation about whether or not the explosion was the result of a tactical nuke.

There is similar speculation about the explosion in Tianjin. When I mentioned this to one of my co-workers, he asked a pretty simple question I didn’t have a response to: why?

Maybe a not-so-subtle message to China to stop liquidating its holdings of UST’s?

As we outlined in July, from the first of the year through June, China looked to have sold somewhere around $107 billion worth of US paper. While that might have seemed like a breakneck pace back then, it was nothing compared to what would transpire in the last two weeks of August. Following the devaluation of the yuan, the PBoC found itself in the awkward position of having to intervene openly in the FX market, despite the fact that the new currency regime was supposed to represent a shift towards a more market-determined exchange rate. That intervention has come at a steep cost – around $106 billion according to Soc Gen. In other words, stabilizing the yuan in the wake of the devaluation has resulted in the sale of more than $100 billion in USTs from China’s FX reserves.

The only thing more disturbing about the thought of tactical nukes being used is that they could be deployed without corporate media reporting it. Instead the idea that tactical nukes have already been used will be left for the conspiracy theorists to discredit by merely discussing the possibility.

But why build them if not to use them? By the way, bravo military industrial complex, it was very clever to modernize our nuclear arsenal under a Democrat president who still obscenely has that Nobel Peace prize.

War is a racket, and too lucrative to ever end.

About Travis Mateer

I'm an artist and citizen journalist living and writing in Montana. You can contact me here: willskink at yahoo dot com
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Have Tactical Nukes Already Being Used?

  1. There is the matter of the Second Battle of Fallujah, circa 2004. Reports of Iraqi casualties at that time exceeded 600,000 excluding Fallujah. The city was surrounded, some people were allowed to leave, but young males of fighting age not. And then something terrible happened. It is a mystery. We know about white phosphorous, with which the Brits have a long love affair, but Falluja is a black hole. We don’t know casualties, weaponry … We only know Pentagon press releases, an ongoing Potemkin Village.

    Are these maniacs in power? They are criminals, for sure, of historic stature. But they are tempering their aggression so that it does not appear that they’ve lost their minds. the ghost of Curtis LeMay must haunt the Pentagon.,

  2. Big Swede says:

    Of course we’ve been using Tactical Nukes.

    Cheney took down the twin towers with one.

  3. There’s an ongoing controversy around 9/11, with an apparent government disinformation agent (Fetzer) advancing the theory that mini-nukes were used that day. The photos belie that notion, as the intense white light of a nuclear explosion were not observed, nor was there enough heat. (The pyroclastic flow from the structures was cold, and did not kill anyone.) Nor were conventional demolition techniques used. Since the top floors of the buildings “apparently” hit the ground at free fall speed, there was no resistance underneath, yet a highly critical structure called the “bathtub” wall was preserved, saving lower Manhattan and the subway system from flooding. the bathtub is a reinforced concrete wall that keeps the river off that real estate. A nuke would have demolished it.

    Fetzer appears to have been tasked to divert attention away from directed energy weapons, the only known technology right now that could have produced the 9/11 scene with cold fires, dustification (rather than collapse) of the buildings, and rescue workers able to walk all over the debris without being burned to a crisp. It was a cold nuclear event under this scenario, and the evidence fits.

    Tianjin exhibits evidence of a hot nuclear blast with blinding light and intense heat. Two different kids of weapons with similar outcomes, the difference being that on 9/11 a cold process was used with essential infrastructure preserved while the buildings were destroyed, barely harming the other buildings right across the street.

    Tianjin is indeed suspicious. We’re ragtag terrorists at it again, or is this a more sophisticated operation like 9/11 involving high-tech weapons?

Leave a Reply