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.

 

ISIS planning ‘nuclear tsunami’

page: 1
41
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+16 more 
posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   
ISIS planning 'nuclear tsunami'



"The terrorists plan on killing several hundred million people. The west is drastically underestimating the power of ISIS. ISIS intends to get its hands on nuclear weapons,” says Todenhofer, calling the group a “nuclear tsunami preparing the largest religious cleansing in history.”


I keep wondering how far the world is going to let this go before someone steps up and DOES something.... Obama will not act because he sees any act as an example of American colonialism.

Now Putin will step up and be the "hero" of the day. However, with Putin, there is ALWAYS a hidden cost. Is the world willing to align itself with the Russian mafia?
edit on 29-9-2015 by CIAGypsy because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: CIAGypsy

Oh it has done alot, humanity is from now on a forced issue not a choice, or that harvest looks kinda nice.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   
How are bunch of desert barbarians going to get these nukes!


+20 more 
posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
The story that unarmed terrorist captured tanks from the armed Iraqi army defies logic. ISIS has been armed on purpose and obviously has supply channels to wage a continuous war against a country. Like the Taliban they have been paid to complete a mission and that is the destruction of Syria.

Russia isn't supporting ISIS but someone is!


edit on 29 9 2015 by glend because: (no reason given)


+8 more 
posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
How are bunch of desert barbarians going to get these nukes!


The same way they got box cutters?



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

The same way that they got all the other war equipment.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: CIAGypsy

well that can't be good... how capable are they though?


+4 more 
posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
How are bunch of desert barbarians going to get these nukes!


The same way the got all their weaponry and vehicles - Via America, Israel and Saudi Arabia.


edit on 29-9-2015 by n00bUK because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
I can't imagine this would be feasible. Trials were done long ago for this exact type of attack and it produced very nominal results....they would have to have a HUGE arsenal to create a tsunami that actually does any damage at all.

ETA...I took it as literally trying to hit the west with a tsunami created by nuclear explosion....I am not eating my foot.

Anywho....they couldn't possibly get enough nukes into our country to do this. The only way I would see it as feasible is if they used our own nuclear devices already in country against us somehow.
edit on 9/29/15 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Isn't very strange that the 3 powers on earth that hate each other the most Americans Saudis and Jews seem to be all working together hand in hand? Wth is that all about?



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: glend

You don't make sense. Not everything is a conspiracy



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: snypwsd
a reply to: glend

You don't make sense. Not everything is a conspiracy


Made sense to me.

And it is a conspiracy, if you can't see that - go have a read about the connections between Saudi Arabia, Israel and america. The west might not be directly funding ISIS, but are indirectly through Saudi Arabia



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
With Russia now saying its guna join the fight against Isis America is guna step up its campaign

If Russia joins the coalition it won't be long till Isis is wiped out

It's what comes after their gone that's worrying me


+2 more 
posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

The same way a hermit country dictatorship ran by a fat tiny Asian man can, to say it's not possible is rediculous. If you've learned anything about the worlds ability to keep red tape in place you would know it fails always. Yes they are goat herders with pitchforks, however so were Americans when we fought Britain.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: CIAGypsy

Certainly any rogue country could provide
the means to poison vast numbers of people '
with Pollonium 210 .
www.thestar.com...
nuclearsafety.gc.ca...
Easier than a bomb/s , and just as deadly !

S&F bump



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: snypwsd



You don't make sense. Not everything is a conspiracy


No not everything but why believe information from the same sources that lied to you about WMD in Iraq. How many lies does it take before you realize that Government and media are purposely feeding you propaganda.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
It might not be a physical nuclear weapon by rather by targeting nuclear power plants around the world. If they were able to get a high powered IED into nuclear power plants and detonate it (in multiple locations) I'm sure it would cause a a nuclear tsunami!



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
How are bunch of desert barbarians going to get these nukes!


like they all do,
they will order them from a 3 letter agency.



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Do any of you realize just how much power is necessary to generate even the tiniest tsunami? Much less one capable of killing millions?

There have been several underwater nuclear test detonations. Only one of which reports any significant wave action...the Baker test in 1946 at Bikini generated a 90 foot wave at around 1000 feet from ground zero, but that wave had subsided to less than ten feet at 20000' from ground zero. Baker test was 20 kilotons.

So immensely large devices (multiple) would be necessary to do the job. Thank God.

About the only feasible way would be to detonate one on say La Palma Island in the Atlantic hoping to dislodge the huge rock waiting to fall off into the water there.

That would, indeed, be a wave of staggering power. I read someplace that the wave that hits the U.S. east coast and Carib islands on its way to the east coast will be on the order of 30 to 50 meters high. Needless to say, the loss of life would be horrific...and whoever did it deliberately, if that's even possible, would have signed their death warrants, so too would any country harboring them.

It wouldn't be conventional, either. It would be nuclear. That is standing U.S./NATO policy. A nuclear attack is answered by nukes. Chemical attacks of large scale are answered by nukes. Biological attacks on a large scale, are answered by nukes.

...and considering the loss of life that would occur during such an event? Not sure I'd argue too much...



posted on Sep, 29 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
Do any of you realize just how much power is necessary to generate even the tiniest tsunami? Much less one capable of killing millions?

There have been several underwater nuclear test detonations. Only one of which reports any significant wave action...the Baker test in 1946 at Bikini generated a 90 foot wave at around 1000 feet from ground zero, but that wave had subsided to less than ten feet at 20000' from ground zero. Baker test was 20 kilotons.

So immensely large devices (multiple) would be necessary to do the job. Thank God.

About the only feasible way would be to detonate one on say La Palma Island in the Atlantic hoping to dislodge the huge rock waiting to fall off into the water there.

That would, indeed, be a wave of staggering power. I read someplace that the wave that hits the U.S. east coast and Carib islands on its way to the east coast will be on the order of 30 to 50 meters high. Needless to say, the loss of life would be horrific...and whoever did it deliberately, if that's even possible, would have signed their death warrants, so too would any country harboring them.

It wouldn't be conventional, either. It would be nuclear. That is standing U.S./NATO policy. A nuclear attack is answered by nukes. Chemical attacks of large scale are answered by nukes. Biological attacks on a large scale, are answered by nukes.

...and considering the loss of life that would occur during such an event? Not sure I'd argue too much...


I think you made the same mistake I did....it isn't actually about a tsunami wave....they were speaking metaphorically in the article....LOL!



new topics

top topics



 
41
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join