2 for 1 sale. Buy 1 get 1 free. Scroll down...

[Opinion: A physicist agrees with me. Wars increasingly risk the end of us. And only are waged because of fear. But is that fear based in reality?.

Edge of Armageddon: 

Why does one of the world’s top thinkers believe we’re nearing nuclear apocalypse?

Stuart Jeffries

The Guardian: 25 Jun 2026

The Italian theoretical physicist , Carlo Rovelli, seems a good person to answer the questions since his timely new book, 85 Seconds to Midnight: A Physicist’s Argument against Rearmament.

Of the three nuclear superpowers – Russia, US and China – only China has resolved not to be a first-use nuclear state. Russia, like the US, reserves the right to respond to conventional attacks with nuclear strikes.

The real problem, Rovelli suggests, is mutual fear. “We are trapped in a lack of reciprocal trust. We sleepwalk through these patterns of everybody becoming more armed, more aggressive.” 

He cites what happened a few weeks ago in St Petersburg. “With Nato weapons, Ukrainians bombed St Petersburg and they tried to bomb Moscow. So a country with nuclear weapons is being ‘bombed’ by the British. “It’s the first time a [superpower] with nuclear weapons has been actually bombed. There was a situation in which if you have nuclear weapons, you don’t get invaded. You don’t get bombed. No more.”

Even Hitler’s Mein Kampf says explicitly: ‘We are weak. And the only way we have to survive is to become stronger and overcome the others.’ So what fuelled the violence of nazism was fear.”

“What fuels the aggressiveness of Israel is fear. What fuels the aggressiveness of Hamas is fear. They are going to destroy us in Gaza unless we are aggressive. To answer fear with fear, to escalate, seems to me disgusting.”

“That’s obviously nonsense. You create these narratives that fuel tribal ideology. And that’s exactly what we don’t want. I don’t think anybody has any natural historical right to anything.”

“We physicists,” Rovelli concedes, “did create this thing [nuclear weapons]. It is our poisoned gift to humankind. “A small bit of uranium can release energy to demolish cities, burn alive millions of human beings and destroy civilisation itself.”

Scientists Have a Plan to Find Out if Satellites Are Secretly Carrying Nukes

An MIT physicist says Earth’s radiation belts could help detector satellites identify uranium or plutonium hidden in orbit.

Luis Prada

Vice: 09 July 9, 2026

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty explicitly bans nuclear weapons in space. However, there is a glaring loophole: we have no way to verify whether anyone has already put one up there. That treaty could have been defied 10 times over by now, and we would have no idea.  

There could be nukes hidden in satellites, and scientists want a way to check. A detector roughly the size of a large encyclopedia could identify a nuclear weapon with about 99 percent accuracy after orbiting within roughly 4,000 meters of a suspect satellite for about a week. Get within 1,000 meters (or deploy several inspector satellites), and it’ll do its job in a matter of hours.

In case you were wondering, a nuclear explosion in low Earth orbit would flood space with radiation, taking down communications and GPS satellite systems, weather monitoring systems, and Internet satellites, which would go down as well. This would disrupt all life on Earth as we know it, likely setting us all back decades [centuries!]  as we scramble to replace those nuked satellites.

2 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

In case you were wondering

No I am not!

Why do you post this nonsensical AI cr@p?

Its the safest amd most peaceful time in history to be alive.

5 minutes ago, blaze master said:

Its the safest amd most peaceful time in history to be alive.

Which time of history do you mean and why?

2 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

This would disrupt all life on Earth as we know it, likely setting us all back decades [centuries!]  as we scramble to replace those nuked satellites.

Care factor = 0

3 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Which time of history do you mean and why?

Ill leave you to figure out that simple statement.

2 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

[Opinion: A physicist agrees with me. Wars increasingly risk the end of us. And only are waged because of fear. But is that fear based in reality?.

Should the above not read; "Opinion: I agree with a physicist" since I doubt if it has heard of you!

If you mention Armageddon' to this fella' he will tell you its my favorite 10 inch one.

1 hour ago, scottiejohn said:

No I am not!

Evidently you’re interested since you came here to read it.

1 hour ago, scottiejohn said:

Why do you post this nonsensical AI cr@p?

Yet you came here and blew some cr@p.

3 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

[Opinion: A physicist agrees with me. Wars increasingly risk the end of us. And only are waged because of fear. But is that fear based in reality?.

I disagree:

I think you are agreeing with the physicist, and not the other way round.

What makes you think that the physicist in question has ever read even one of your comments?

And so, how would you know if the physicist in question agrees with you?

This makes no sense.

36 minutes ago, blaze master said:

So because you don't understand and are frustrated....you then come out with the personal ironic insults.

Oh my. Time to move on ok. There is nothing left for you here.

It would have been far better for him to use the Question-Mark Emoji....???

I think not.

I hate that emoji above all things.

3 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

In case you were wondering, a nuclear explosion in low Earth orbit would flood space with radiation, taking down communications and GPS satellite systems, weather monitoring systems, and Internet satellites, which would go down as well. This would disrupt all life on Earth as we know it, likely setting us all back decades [centuries!]  as we scramble to replace those nuked satellites.

You are talking EMP.

But you don't really need to have weapons in space to mount an effective HEMP attack.

Still, in order to cover an entire continent, most effectively, maybe go to higher altitudes.

So, yes, altitude does matter.

Nukes in space are actually a very good thing:

And, just think of the conversion of all that GAMMA Radiation...!!!

Higher is Better

Edited August 2Aug 2 by GammaGlobulin

27 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

I disagree:

I think you are agreeing with the physicist, and not the other way round.

What makes you think that the physicist in question has ever read even one of your comments?

And so, how would you know if the physicist in question agrees with you?

This makes no sense.

Just like your post!

Some posts with personal insults and the replies have been removed.

2 hours ago, blaze master said:

Ill leave you to figure out that simple statement.

You seem to have not realised that I asked a two-part question to which no acceptable answer has been received regarding either!

I will therefore rephrase the questions in a much simpler form so that you can understand them and possibly give a cogent answer!

Q1 Which time of history do you mean?

Q2 Why do you pick that time in history?

4 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

You seem to have not realised that I asked a two-part question to which no acceptable answer has been received regarding either!

I will therefore rephrase the questions in a much simpler form so that you can understand them and possibly give a cogent answer!

Q1 Which time of history do you mean?

Q2 Why do you pick that time in history?

What is quite fascinating is how some folks develop a hellbent obsession about prying a response from someone on the internet, it’s almost like they’re deeply offended if not addressed. Quite strange, wouldn’t you say?

Many ways can lead to Armageddon. A "shortcut" could be:

- The most powerful nation on earth elects a presisent that is mentally "instable". Twice. Of course, this president has to undergo "medical check up's". Problem is: No doctor or medical institution would be willing to disclose that the president suffers from "mental problems". Unthinkable.

So, Armageddon is only one bad decision away by 1 single man, producing "erratic" decisions, this having become his trade mark.

Armageddon can have a name. A certain Austrian comes to mind.

59 minutes ago, swissie said:

Many ways can lead to Armageddon. A "shortcut" could be:

- The most powerful nation on earth elects a presisent that is mentally "instable". Twice. Of course, this president has to undergo "medical check up's". Problem is: No doctor or medical institution would be willing to disclose that the president suffers from "mental problems". Unthinkable.

So, Armageddon is only one bad decision away by 1 single man, producing "erratic" decisions, this having become his trade mark.

Armageddon can have a name. A certain Austrian comes to mind.

That single man would not only be the mentally unstable dude in the white house..

1 hour ago, swissie said:

Many ways can lead to Armageddon. A "shortcut" could be:

- The most powerful nation on earth elects a presisent that is mentally "instable". Twice. Of course, this president has to undergo "medical check up's". Problem is: No doctor or medical institution would be willing to disclose that the president suffers from "mental problems". Unthinkable.

So, Armageddon is only one bad decision away by 1 single man, producing "erratic" decisions, this having become his trade mark.

Armageddon can have a name. A certain Austrian comes to mind.

I realise that the man was elected into office twice. This MUST lead me to the next question. Knowingly, the US electorate was aware that a "disturbed" New York real estate acrobat would be the "helmsman".

Oh sorry, I forgot "Make America great again". Problem is, that America hasn't gotten Great Again, since he took office.

Quite the opposite, America has no democratic friends left. Worst of it all: By imposing "import taxes" means nothing else that the US industry can no more compete internationally. Silicone valley will not be the rescue.

1 hour ago, swissie said:

I realise that the man was elected into office twice. This MUST lead me to the next question. Knowingly, the US electorate was aware that a "disturbed" New York real estate acrobat would be the "helmsman".

Oh sorry, I forgot "Make America great again". Problem is, that America hasn't gotten Great Again, since he took office.

Quite the opposite, America has no democratic friends left. Worst of it all: By imposing "import taxes" means nothing else that the US industry can no more compete internationally. Silicone valley will not be the rescue.

It was great before he came along..now it's crap.

The Strait of Hormuz was open to everyone before he came along, now its partially closed and utter chaos. 😠

If only Bruce Willis' was available🤔

12 hours ago, swissie said:

So, Armageddon is only one bad decision away by 1 single man, producing "erratic" decisions, this having become his trade mark

One of the biggest fear-mongering psyop ever was that the US president has a "red button" in his office where he can blow up the entire planet.

That button gets the president a Coke or a Pepsi.

Well something needs to happen to stop this madness all over the world. Exactly what I have no idea, but it’s beyond out of control right now.

19 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

“With Nato weapons, Ukrainians bombed St Petersburg and they tried to bomb Moscow. So a country with nuclear weapons is being ‘bombed’ by the British. “

The country being bombed invaded another country, instigating a war and they are being bombed by Ukraine, not the United Kingdom.

You have to answer to the Sassanachs Carlo.

17 hours ago, blaze master said:

Its the safest amd most peaceful time in history to be alive.

The Ukrainians and Iranians might disagree with you.

IMO the real danger is Israel. It's got a war with Iran, and is comprehensively outnumbered by Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Ansa Allah, to name only three of its proxies.

If Israel uses a nuke against Iran, it opens the door for every other nuclear power to do the same.

2 hours ago, Dcheech said:

The country being bombed invaded another country, instigating a war and they are being bombed by Ukraine, not the United Kingdom.

You have to answer to the Sassanachs Carlo.

No one's disputing that. Slava Ukraini. But weapons from foreign countries could trigger nuclear war in retaliation against the country which provided the weapons.

5 hours ago, Lacessit said:

The Ukrainians and Iranians might disagree with you.

IMO the real danger is Israel. It's got a war with Iran, and is comprehensively outnumbered by Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Ansa Allah, to name only three of its proxies.

If Israel uses a nuke against Iran, it opens the door for every other nuclear power to do the same.

Matters not who disagrees with me.....Fact still remains.

Also. No nukes will be used. Just more fear mongering.

1 hour ago, blaze master said:

Matters not who disagrees with me.....Fact still remains.

Also. No nukes will be used. Just more fear mongering.

You are not posting facts. You are posting your opinion.

Facts need evidence to back them up. Your post had none.

6 hours ago, Lacessit said:

The Ukrainians and Iranians might disagree with you.

IMO the real danger is Israel. It's got a war with Iran, and is comprehensively outnumbered by Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Ansa Allah, to name only three of its proxies.

If Israel uses a nuke against Iran, it opens the door for every other nuclear power to do the same.

Haven't you been following the news ?

Hamas and Hezbollah have been annihilated by Israel and Iran have taken a battering

“What fuels the aggressiveness of Israel is fear. What fuels the aggressiveness of Hamas is fear. They are going to destroy us in Gaza unless we are aggressive. To answer fear with fear, to escalate, seems to me disgusting.”

Very true. Fear is a great motivator. One of the great motivating forces, really. Second not even to greed.

Hopefully the Russians won't be fear filled like the Israelis clearly are.