There's a lot here to draw contempt. The main thing that makes me roll my eyes is they way the presence of radiation and how dangerous it is somehow proves that the bombs didn't exist. Example:
Bikini Atoll, where additional atomic bombs were tested following the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, was repopulated by 1968, even though radiation estimates suggested the island would be uninhabitable for a thousand years.When were the radiation estimates made? By whom were they made? Did the people making these estimates subscribe to the "no safe dose" theory of radiation, or was radiation hormesis their starting point?
Here's the thing: "no safe dose" assumes that any exposure to radiation which you can avoid should be avoided. The millirem of radiation you absorb today will still affect your health fifty years from now, so you must avoid it. Radiation hormesis, on the other hand, contends that the millirem of radiation you absorb today is accounted for by your biology, and has no effect on your health unless you absorb several thousand more millirems at the same time.
Every protocol for dealing with radioactivity in the world was developed starting with the principle that any exposure to radiation is harmful. All of them start from that premise, because it is the safest way to proceed, but that doesn't mean it's correct. And in fact the more we learn about the effects of radioactivity on living organisms, the more obvious it becomes that there is a certain threshold below which radiation becomes harmless, and possibly even beneficial.
When the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it's true that the bombs did not erase the cities. A lot of things remained standing. There were many times the number of survivors as those killed. As nuclear weapons go, Fat Man and Little Boy were primitive devices; single-stage weapons which depended solely on their fissionable metal to release energy. That's why their yields were so low, under twenty kilotons.
Nuclear bombs are just bigger bangs with interesting side effects; there's nothing magical about them. That's why I frequently scoff at movies which treat them as "end of the world" machines. They're not. Movies like Manhattan Project, for example, where a kid makes a single-stage bomb from alleged "super-plutonium"--which I debunked here and here, and then here as well, so that's a tale already plainly told.
A 20 kt device set off over a major city will not wipe out the city, and the blast radius isn't going to be uniform unless the city's built on utterly flat terrain. It will kill a lot of people, yes. Not all of them will die immediately; fire and radiation poisoning will kill more than the initial blast will, or even can. People will be able to live at "ground zero" almost immediately; they're not going to be struck dead by radiation. They won't exactly be a preferred risk as it would shorten their life expectancy but that means years later, not right now--and the longer they wait to take up residence there the better their chances get. Wait about two weeks and your life expectancy is not significantly affected.
As energetic as a 20 kt device is, it's really not all that much energy. Not enough to raze an entire city and kill all the inhabitants. Expecting one to--and then claiming the bombings were faked because the bombs didn't utterly wipe out their targets--is idiocy.
The impressive part about a nuclear bomb is that one bomb can deliver such a wallop. You don't need to flatten a city to render it economically inert, and that's the point of bombing any strategic target. You don't bomb cities because you get off on killing civilians; you bomb cities because you want to destroy the enemy's ability to make war on you, and you do that by crippling his economy. What the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs did was to demonstrate to the Japanese government that the US had now gotten a hell of a lot more efficient at destroying their ability to produce war materiel, that one airplane could now stop economic activity in a specified location.
Then there's this nonsense: "[Atomic bombs'] inner workings cannot be disseminated because they are 'top secret.'"
Their inner workings are basic physics. I have understood the "inner workings" of the plutonium implosion bomb since before I was in sixth grade. What "cannot be disseminated" are the engineering details, because the last thing you want to do with a strategic asset like a thermonuclear warhead is to let your enemies know how you solved the problem of this or that particular technological detail. The bombs themselves are so simple, though, that you could build one in your garage with the right tools...and most of those tools are available now for not a lot of money. Getting the fissionables and other materials are a lot harder than getting the tools and knowledge to build a single-stage weapon like Little Boy.
This information couldn't be disseminated in 1945 because it was still cutting-edge science. They needed a Manhattan Project to develop the bomb because it had never been done before. But they did it using 1945 technology, because it's f-ing simple to do once you understand the principles.
"...some photographs of USSR nuclear explosions appear fake." Of course they do. This is the USSR we're talking about; the commies used propaganda the way we use electricity. "Look at how big our latest bomb is!"
Why would Bikini Island tests have been faked if the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were real?1) Presumes the Bikini Island tests were faked predicated on the fact that people now live there, when "everyone knows" the islands are uninhabitable. They're not; see "radiation hormesis". Also, "Chernobyl exclusion zone" where plants and animals are doing just fine.
Did the US suddenly run out of bombs?
And what about Russia? How did the USSR make nuclear bombs while the Pentagon was faking theirs?
2) Yes the US suddenly ran out of bombs. In August of 1945 we used both extant bombs and they had to build new ones. But at the time of the Bikini tests that was no longer the case.
3) The Pentagon was not faking theirs. People living on Bikini Atoll in 2013--sixty years after the last test!--does not mean that the bomb tests there were faked.
...I could go on, but I think I've made my point. What a bunch of crap.