It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Panetta reveals US nuke strike plans on N. Korea, spurs controversy.

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

If that were the case and your premise is correct we should have nuked and been nuked by the Soviets since we both had plans. Did that happen?

Stop being hysterical.




posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 09:50 AM
link   
it's ok. men who have peace only retain it when rough men are prepared for the dirty business of war to preserve it.

Si vis pacem, para bellum!



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   
At least this shows that America is run by Nutjobs.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter
At least this shows that America is run by Nutjobs.


Oh, there are plenty of Nutjobs out there looking to arm themselves with Nukes.




posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

Right. Because every other nuclear country has no contingency plans for their arsenal.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter
At least this shows that America is run by Nutjobs.
in this case correlation is not causation. america is ran by nut jobs and evil control freaks. but they are not nut jobs and control freaks because of being prepared for war. they are nut jobs and evil control freaks for wanting to run every minute detail of your life.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 09:58 AM
link   
North Korea, just needs a situation where the west gives them a way out of their comedy acts without them loosing face.
They pose no real threat on their own, but I believe them to be the funny face of china.
There is never a moral reason to use nukes. NK could under unforeseeable circumstances get one off, and hit SK, but their attack would probably fail due to their comedic approach, and limited nuclear capability, it would be an act of suicide. The US Nuking Nk would have detrimental effects on south Korea, and would also inflame China.
'US' is now synonymous with 'OTT', i.e. over the top.

Can be used in a sentence like : Wow your behaviour is a bit US.

"
Pinky: Gee, Brain, what do you want to do tonight?
Brain: The same thing we do every night, Pinky - try to take over the world!
"
edit on 16-10-2014 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


If that were the case and your premise is correct we should have nuked and been nuked by the Soviets since we both had plans. Did that happen?

Stop being hysterical.

Open warfare between superpowers hasn't broken out yet. history proves that empires always fail. Always.

Making plans, lol. In the end the participants are only 'preparing for war'.

I find that quite hysterical. We are waging aggressive war right now. With nukes even . Google Depleted Uranium.

Denial much?



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Your hyperbolic, hysteric exaggeration has nothing to do with the Original Post, depleted uranium is not what this was about.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   
...ironically you probably agree with the very notions that make them nutjobs and evil control freaks. you misidentify the genesis of your bondage. It resides in the grasping clutching evil of the ever growing executive agencies; and in the mind rot that wants more government involvement in what should be your own business.

you want you universal health care. you want them to regulate soft drinks salt cooking oil and so on. you want them to regulate tobacco while rejoicing in legalized drugs consumed in the exact same way. you want them to enshrine in law your every pet peeve or social engineering idea and enforce it like any good authoritarian banana republic dictator with force of arms and prison on those that disagree with you. you never met a government nanny law or regulation (each a link in the manacles binding us all) that you didn't like.

bu oh no don't plan to protect our freedom with icky military stuff. eeeew.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Leaders and governments have been making "war plans" since Sumer. Most likely even earlier.

It has been and always will be that way.

Doesn't make it "right" or "wrong". It is what it is.

The US certainly is not the first to ever do this, nor will it be the last.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful


It has been and always will be that way.

Doesn't make it "right" or "wrong". It is what it is.

The US certainly is not the first to ever do this, nor will it be the last.

That doesn't make it "alright".

Have you ever actually read the US Constitution?



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


Your hyperbolic, hysteric, exaggeration…

And you are right on the verge of your usual insulting behavior. If you can't find argument…



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: eriktheawful


It has been and always will be that way.

Doesn't make it "right" or "wrong". It is what it is.

The US certainly is not the first to ever do this, nor will it be the last.

That doesn't make it "alright".

Have you ever actually read the US Constitution?


Nuclear arms is not covered by the US Constitution.

And not only have I read it many times, I've taught it.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

If you do not like your irrationally highlighted do not act irrational.

The thread is about nuclear deployment scenarios, not all the non-sequitur tangents you like to hyperbolically use.




edit on 16-10-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful


Nuclear arms is not covered by the US Constitution.

Everything about behavior among nations is covered by one statement.

You are the 'authority.' Tell me why "entangling alliances" was included? Tell me what the framers meant about why they came here from Europe to avoid "endless war" in the first place?



And not only have I read it many times, I've taught it.

I know the meaning behind it. Don't even imply to me that the US government is defending it?



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


If you do not like your irrationally highlighted do not act irrational.

Do you ever actually have anything to offer besides thinly veiled abuse? Not one link so far.


I'm going to do the honorable thing here and walk away first.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

What needs to be linked? The Original Post was clear and then you come along and interject mistaken information about Nobel, irrelevant comments about depleted uranium and hyperbole unrelated to the thread.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Good god, you're the same as ever. Taking something that is very simple and trying to make it into something much more complex than it is.

The OP is about tactical battle plans. That is ALL that it is about.

Countries since the formation of civilizations have ALWAYS had people that lead them make tactical battle plans.

Battle plans always include whatever a countries arsenals are. Nukes included if they have them, and whether or not they will, should or can be used.

ALL countries on the Earth do this. Period.

It's neither right, nor wrong. It is simply what humans do.

This thread is NOT about the US being in Korea. Period. You are derailing the thread with it. If it means that much to you: create a new thread discussing the US involvement in S. Korea.

The Framers could not foresee the US becoming a super power. The Framers could not have imagined another super power trying to spread communism, nor another super power trying to practice "containment" of that spread. The Framers made sure to use grey words, to allow "wiggle" room.

It is a "entangling alliance" or a "mutually beneficial" one?

In any case: you're off topic. The thread is about the use of nuclear arms in a battle plan of an ally. Not whether we should be involved as an ally or not. Make a new thread for that.



posted on Oct, 19 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
What i see as a problem is that the senior Akmerican General on the peninsula would take command of all US and South Korea forces.

What this is saying is that south Korea dont have a say in the matter concerning their own nation or their own soldiers. What if South korea dont want to nucke NK? The US would still do it if they see it necessary.

A NK attack on South Korea is not an attack against the US.


The North Korean war never ended. The U.S. is the premier force for the UN war against NK, IE: The U.S. Commander of the UN force in South Korea is and has been in charge of the military response for many long years. Thanks to Eisenhower not listening to MacArthur we lost NK to the Chicoms.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join