Where is your link to scientific evidence of this theory of yours?
See
this study for example. I engage you to look for additional studies if you want to.
More than half of the world's population lives in cities. There are over 15,000 nuclear weapons. There are less than 3,000 cities. So with less than 20% of world nukes you would already take out more than half the population.
No, the majority of the arsenal is made of W88 warheads that are about 50 times more powerful than Little Boy, but this only translates into a 3-4 bigger explosion radius (sphere volume is proportional to cubic radius). And Little Boy could only destroy the center of the little town of Hiroshima and its many wood houses (300k capita). You could raze Manhattan with a couple of them (towers may resist and limit deflagration), but the NYC conurbation would take a lot more than this.
Second of all I fail to see why the USSR would have bombed Delhi, Amsterdam or Johannesburg. Strikes would have been focused on places with nuclear weapons.
Link to factual data, please.
I can provide links in French, not in English, and in PM only (I got warned by moderators against posting French links).
If this is fine for you I will provide you:
* A reference to an official study that shows that Muslims amount to 28% of high-schoolers in the area of Marseilles (Bouches-du-Rhône). The third I mentioned about the Paris' youth comes from paper only but this other one should convince you. Especially since such a number is not surprising once you realize that Muslim demographics are younger and concentrated in cities.
* Official historical population numbers that show a growth rate equivalent to a doubling over three decades.
With that in hands, you would have to be stubborn to refuse to believe that they could grow from 30% (of Parisian youth) to 50% (Paris overall) before the end of this century.
Meanwhile, you can look at
the data for UK, for which data are more easily usable here (English language + no prohibition on ethnic stats): despite only being 5% of Britain, they account to 12% of London. A third of them are below 15 years old and their population increased by 33% in London between 2001 and 2011. 400% between 1981 and 2011.
Just because there is no BBC article stating "Muslims will demographically dominate London at this rate", it does not mean it is not happening. The data are there for anyone willing to seriously examine them.
The VAST majority of Muslims are just as decent and accepting as anyone else.
No, but this is irrelevant anyway.
The problem is not that Muslims are monsters (although their cultures are a lot more intolerant and xenophobe than other groups). The problem is that we are different identities with different cultures, different values and different civilizational ideals. We will always be divided, always an "us" and a "them", which never works for a country.
Moreover they are quickly and radically changing OUR countries, and a fast demographic shift is the best way to prompt extremism. We will not stand by while Muslims do islamize our country and spread THEIR culture. But before you accuse us and incorrectly blame the far-right (confusing cause and consequence), I have no doubt that the first ethnic cleansing in France will be committed by them, not by us.
This is OUR country. Not a Muslim ****hole.
The only reasons so many Middle Eastern nations are a mess are politics and poverty...it's little/nothing to do with religion.
Their politics are in a mess precisely because different social identities have to live together. And those social identities distrust each other and hate each other, which means the government is never legitimate because everyone think they serve the other group, ecause people indeed favor their own group. And this distrust then creates economic problems and conflicts.
See also
Robert Putnam's works.