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.

 

Who will use nuke in Middle East first???

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 09:50 AM
link   
With the on-going proliferation of nuclear weapons on the world stage and the continued volitility and warring in the Middle East, which country is likely to use a nuke there first? Will it even be a country that uses one, or a terrorist group? Who will it be used against?

Jazzgul contact me about my avatar which previoulsy included a backdrop map of the Middle east with the nuke exploding above it. At first Jazz was offended and believed that I was advocating nuclear destrcution of the Middle East. This couldn't have been further from the truth. As a result I have changed my avatar to ensure that no one becomes offended by a mixed-message. But the point of my avatar remains...

The Middle East has been in a constant stae of war for centuries with no end in sight. They have fought some of the bloodiest wars and introduced some of the most horrendous battle methods ever witnessed by man (With the exception of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). The advent of the extremists have truly complicated this volitile mix. It is highly likely, in fact I will go with "Probable" that the next aggressive nuclear detonation will take place in the Middle East, but by whom and against whom? Any opinions on the matter?

My best guess is that a terrorist organization will detonate a nuke in Israel within the next few years. Scary and, believe me, I certainly hope I am wrong, but that is my belief.




posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 09:59 AM
link   
kozmo -I was not offended, more curious

As I said I hope Nobody will use Nukes in the middle East. It is hot there anyway. Think about that: using nukes in the middle east will start nuclear war which will affect an entire planet - it will work like domino effect. I believe (hopelessly), that all powers in the word know that - that is way why it didnt happed yet and won't in the future..



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 10:05 AM
link   
You have some good points. As much as alot of the middle east at the moment seems to be quite resentfull of the western governments, it doesnt change the facts that in the middle east they have been warring within the tribes and religions there for millenia. will this ever change.....doubtfull, as wars are usually fought because of intolerance, hatred and for power, greed, or the idealism of the few......and this unfortunately is an inherant part of our human nature........If I had been born in Iraq, or Palestine, or even iran......I would probably have been intdoctrinated with these same views as alot of the Mullahs and fanatics......and go to war and murder someone cause I dodnt like them being sunni as opposed to shiia!......this is no excuse tho.....and I believe its only a matter of time before nuclear weapons agents are used in the middle east on a large scale.....tho I would doubt that many terrorist groups would have the intelligence capabilities to infiltrate Israel with a nuclear device giving off that tell tale signature....the Israelis have been monitoring their country for palestinian threats since its inception and are very, very adept at spotting such activity.....however I would not put it past Israel herself to use the first major nuclear strikes.....and theres credible evidence that they used a small tactical nuke to take out the old Nuclear plant in Iraq last decade. Tho there is also a potential for either India or Pakistan to use Nukes in stikes agains each other as they have threatened to do in the recent past.
God help the man or woman who pushes the big red button to let the first 1 fly tho



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 10:10 AM
link   
...Couldn't really care too much about the "Domino effect" of a nuclear detonation. In fact, for the sake of "jihad" they really don't care much about anything. The only consequence that they are concerned with is being martryed and receiving their virgins. Secondly, desperate regimes like the Ayatollah and Mullahs in Iran or Kim Jong Il in N Korea seem more than willing to use nuclear weapons at the slightest provocation. Then you have the unseculred stockpiles in the former USSR and the possibility for more unsecured stockpiles if something were to ever happen to Musharaf in Pakistan. Finally you have rogue scientists from both the former USSR and Pakistan openly selling secrets to the nuclear genie to the highest bidders which, sadly enough, seem to be the terrorists bent on our destruction.

To think that this won't happen is, in my opinion, highly short-sighted. Again, for me, this isn't so much about "IF" this could happen, it is more about "WHEN" will this happen and who will be the initiator and who will be the victim.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 10:28 AM
link   

My best guess is that a terrorist organization will detonate a nuke in Israel within the next few years. Scary and, believe me, I certainly hope I am wrong, but that is my belief.


At first, I'd be inclined to think you're right. However, remember that Jerusalem is holy to the Arabs as well as to the Jews.

I do agree that it will be the act of a small group of terrorists though, and that yes, they will care nothing about any repercussions of such an act. The big question is where? Isreal just may be the choice, but I doubt it will be in Jerusalem proper.... Would probably be in one of the occupied territories....



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
...Couldn't really care too much about the "Domino effect" of a nuclear detonation. In fact, for the sake of "jihad" they really don't care much about anything. The only consequence that they are concerned with is being martryed and receiving their virgins.


They are terrorists as you described, but they are working under control of organization. People, who runs this organizations are not as blind, even if the use their army for their sick purposes. They choose to fight terrorist way, because they believe they can free their land from oppressors - it means they CARE about their land and even if they use terrible ways to announce that, they don't want to completely destroy their world


Secondly, desperate regimes like the Ayatollah and Mullahs in Iran or Kim Jong Il in N Korea seem more than willing to use nuclear weapons at the slightest provocation. Then you have the unseculred stockpiles in the former USSR and the possibility for more unsecured stockpiles if something were to ever happen to Musharaf in Pakistan.

This reminds me about former cold war -the idea was to show that "we" are able to destroy "you" too, so keep your hads off. So now we have second cold war I think - and they (Iran and North Korea) are just crying -
Get out of my place, and I believe this is reaction triggered by U.S. war in Iraq...

For the rest - we shouldnt think negative -remember whatever you wish it might happen


PEACE

[edit on 17-12-2004 by jazzgul]



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 10:46 AM
link   
I think the nuclear weapon will be detonated in two basic scenarios:

Middle east attacks Israel again. Israel will have to use nukes to decimate their enemies. In this case Middle East is rescued by a coalition of countries and the Arab world ceases to exist as we know it. Islam also reduced to a very minority religion. If Iran was not controlled by such fanatics I would say the chance for a new Arab-Israeli war are almost NIL for time being.
Arab terrorists detonate a nuke in U.S. One or more Arab countries will be destroyed in response. Arab world ceases to exist as it does today. Perhaps becoming vassal states to the U.S. and Russia.
The most dangerous is Pakistan and India. These two countries are VERY arrogant towards each other and it does not take much for them to go to war. They seem to have no fear of using nuclear weapons
I really doubt North Koreas military would allow a nuke to be launched no matter what that little nut job who thinks hes in charge says. I truly believe that N. Korea is a Chinese yapping dog meant to draw our attention from their growing threat.

Bottom line: I think Pakistan and India will each use nukes on each other. Pakistan will fall under fanatical Islamic control. The Kashmir issue will then flare up and both sides will not have the will to resist a permanent solution to their problems. Oh well, the I.T. jobs will be coming back to the U.S. at least.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 10:53 AM
link   
I still believe it will never happen. There is no evidence that it will. No matter how crazy some leaders may appear in our press, I really don't think anyone is stupid enough to use one. I think if a nuclear bomb is used again (which I hope will never happen) then it will be a Western country that does so.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 11:22 AM
link   
In my opinion, it will happen in the Middle East. It has something to do with Israel. In the eyes of the Satanic Globalists, they want to sacrifice millions within Israel by using a nuclear war between those Middle East Countries. I think that a Muslim Country will lash at Israel first with nuke, killing millions in the aftermath, and a likewise reaction by Israel Forces.

After this, ww3 begins, giving the Satanic Globalists their final stages for the New World Order.

Of course, like all major world events, it'll all be planned by those Satanic globalists.

I got this idea from John Kaminski, I think.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 11:28 AM
link   
... from everyone. Thank you for responding. Just one question though... Why does it seem that everyone is so certain that "leaders" possess the logic and reason that would prohibit themselves from using a nuclear weapon? In my opinion, it is EXACTLY their sense of logic and reason that would have them use one. I mean, what "logic" is employed in flying planes into buildings? What "logic" is employed by strapping bombs to one's self and blowing up innocent people? What "logic" is employed in announcing to the world that you are ignoring the UN's Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and flying straight in the face of an agreement with the US and developing nukes AND THEN threatening to bomb anyone that says "boo" to you about it (Kim Jong Il)? That's just begging for problems and possibly a war.

You have to remember, these fanatics DO NOT CARE about anyone or anything other than their duties and obligations to Allah and becoming a martyr. I think that it is probable that a nuclear weapon will be used in the near future by a terrorist. It may even be a terrorist acting on behalf of a government by proxy. If this is the chess game that some of you purport it to be, then you must realize by now that a nuclear detonation on US soil cannot and would not result in a retalitory strike. I mean, against whom would we strike? How would we justify it to the international community? Therein lies the danger of clandestine terrorist militias... they have no "homeland" to speak of nor do they fight under any particular flag. Their numbers are small and a retalitory strike would kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent people. It would outrage the entire globe.

If (more like "when") this happens, the US would be wise to do nothing except for ask for international help in destroying terrorism AND we would receive it like never before. Even after 9/11 many countries felt like terrorism was a US problem, not a global one. They were proven wrong when terrorists struck Saudi Arabia, Russia, Spain and countless other countries. A nuclear attack on US soil by terrorists would show the rest of the world that the threat is real, to EVERYONE.

On the other hand, the detonation of a nuke in the US by terrorists would be a great recruiting tool for them. It would demonstrate their legitimacy throughout the Middle East and would attract great numbers of new recruits.

Don't kid yourselves, they know all of this.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Something to think about. Before we started sticking our nose in the Middle East business, they were fighting each other daily. Now, with a common foe,( the west,) the Middle East seems to have united to face thier adversity. With all eyes on us, Im inclined to think that if a nuke goes off, it will be in America.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 12:00 PM
link   
The United States will be the first country to use a Nuclear weapon in the Middle East.

We will use a nuclear tipped bunker buster to break the hardened bunkers of the Iranian nuclear weapons bunkers and production plants.

It was proven in Gulf war 2 the current US bunker busters could not penetrate Sadams superbunkers and a new bunker buster was needed for the US arsenal and now is on the way.

This weapon will break through the concrete outer barriers, dive down several hundred feet and detonate using a time delayed fuse.

This will be followed by several additional nuclear bunker busters using the exact entry point of the first bomb.

Fallout will be kept to a minimum due to underground detonation.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 02:41 PM
link   
that is certainly possible, if normal bunkerbusters don't cut the job, I think the current administration could be just the type of administration to do such a thing. How about Israel, it's not unlikely they try the first raid on Iran installation as they perceive iranian nukes as a very real and direct threat, could the israeli have a nuclear bunkerbuster ?.

While we have seen the arial photos on the net of the locations where iran developes her "peacefull" nuclear program, are there any non-classified estimations / assessments of how thick or how deep buried these bunkers are??

I would be interesting to see if one could improve bunkers by using a heavy-duty ten times in size upscaled version of russian kaktus tankarmour, the exploding metal plates that try to cut kinetic missiles in pieces from the sides before they dig too deep.



[edit on 17-12-2004 by Countermeasures]



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 03:29 PM
link   
I really couldn't see the US doing this... under any circumstances. I believe that the simple stigmatism of using a nuclear weapon, regardless of the type and for what reason, would prevent the US from taking that step. UNLESS... it was done by proxy... meaning we gave the weapon to Israel to use but that presents a whole other set of problems with the UN and Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

The US had it's day with Nuclear weapons. We invented the cursed thing, let the genie out of the bottle so to speak and then hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I can't see the US ever using one again, not even tactically, unless it was a direct response to a specific nation/state who fired a nuke at us first.

Again, I have to believe that it is going to be a low-yield type of nuclear weapon detonated in the Middle East by terrorists against US military assets.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
With the on-going proliferation of nuclear weapons on the world stage and the continued volitility and warring in the Middle East, which country is likely to use a nuke there first? Will it even be a country that uses one, or a terrorist group? Who will it be used against?[/QUOTE]
The US probably won't use a nuke until it itself is hit with a WMD attack, be it bio/chem/ or nuke.

On warefare in the middle east, well, to begin with, every part of the world has had a ceaseless history of constant history of violent and wantonly destructive warefare. Anyway, with a proliferation of nukes, its possible that there will be less largescale war, because of a detterence effect.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 04:41 PM
link   
the U.S. dropped them before, dont think they wont again, if their is a nuclear attack on u.s. soil, someone is going to be blown into oblivion. and it is going to be a shame that alot of inocent people will have to die for the so called cause.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 04:54 PM
link   
how can anyone but israel launch a nuclear attack, after all, they are the only country in the middle east with nuclear weapons.

iran is very far away from the bomb, and no other arabs possess the bomb. (the pakistanis are not arabs)



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 06:19 PM
link   
if they have or if they use them on them selfs and not on western nations or western orientated nations we must not retaliat we will safe the world and the place were most of the problems are currently are gone.
so if they use it on middle east countries which all ready are radical against us no problem but NOT PREFERED But they I like the US NATO and RUSSIA ect. do not throw nukes back.then it will escallate .



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 03:38 AM
link   
I think that a "rouge state" or terrorist will utilize a nuke at some point.
The most likley target is the USA.
IF a nuke goes off in the middle east, it COULD be used as a ploy....meaning used on yourself to garner pity and raise both pity and ire for/of muslims.

Actually i think that if a nuke does get used, it would NOT lead to a wider use of them beyond a strike/counter strike (say iran/israel). I think this because once it is known that nukes went off, many of those in the nuke club will really think twice and terror will sweep the world AGAINST further use of them....I cant see the typical exchange of ICBM's either, perhaps battlefield tacticle nukes being used against a specific target, but not just to wipe out a city unless it was terrorism meant to get support (reverse psychology) from those just nuked by trying to blame others for it.

Israel will not use a nuke unless a WMD is used against them, and even then, the big arm of the USA would try to contain them.
The USA will not use any nuke, even bunker busters as it would blow our stance in the world community....



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 04:14 AM
link   
Well, after reading a 12/16/2004 report called /road_to_nuclear_security.pdf]The Road To Nuclear Security, I would probably say that the first use of a nuke may well be Chechnya in Russia, against Russia. That's where the stuff is, more easily accessible than anywhere else, the security measures are lax, and fissile material and nukes are unaccounted for. Seemed to make pretty good sense to me.

Some other things in that report were interesting:
200 US nukes aimed at the city of Moscow alone? What, do they expect that 195 or so will miss the target? 2,000 targeted "hair-trigger" armed nukes? The case they build for the high likelihood of an accidental or unauthorized launch is intriguing. And there's plenty more in the report. A worthwhile read, albeit long.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join