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.

 

Russian Nuclear Units On The Move, Civilians Told To Leave, Putin vs. ISIS

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 08:01 AM
link   
i've said before that i think nuclear weapons will be used in anger again, in my lifetime. i still think so. from this incident? who knows. but it's inevitable (IMO).




posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 08:04 AM
link   
ISIL claims they did it, I actually believe they did it as well. They could have been working with the Egyptian army to shoot down the plane. . . .


edit on 1-11-2015 by FormOfTheLord because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 08:09 AM
link   
I call BS as well, but.............

Using a small, tactical missile on ISIS could be a brilliant strategic move. If NATO was warned ahead of time, this would send a very strong message to the West. Putin has nukes, and is not afraid to use them. This would have the effect of showing Russias resolve, and perhaps make other countries think twice before confronting them.

After all, what good is a nuclear deterrence if it doesn't deter?



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Putin could use the mere threat to drive oil prices back up.....



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: nightbringr

Thing is, ISIS even before they began getting their arses handed to them by the Russians in short order, they were a bunch of desperate, deluded religious nutjobs.

Nuclear deterrents, meaning the threat of nuclear weapons being used against you, only works if those being threatened by those nukes are actually sane and prefer living to dying...i'm not so sure anything about ISIS could be considered and described as being sane.

But really, even using low yield, so-called 'battlefield nukes', i cannot see why Russia would use them, when they are already kicking ISIS arse all over Syria and Iraq using intense, but very conventional weaponry.

Even if a Russian civilian airliner was brought down by ISIS, and not some ordinary but tragic malfunction of the jet liner being the cause of it's demise, Russia would probably just further intensify and ramp up it's conventional action against ISIS rather than using nukes which would contaminate the target areas and beyond for years to come.

Mind you, having said that...the threat of radiologic contamination of the M.E. didn't stop the Western coalition from doing so when they fired tonnes of radioactive Depleted Uranium munitions like they were going out of fashion...so maybe Russia actually could use nukes?



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX
But.....Russia isn't kicking anyone's ass. Furthermore, you missed the entire point of my post.

It would be to deter the West from confronting Russia, not ISIS.

And sorry, if you actually believe Russia somehow magically has ISIS on the ropes after a month and a half of bombing, and no boots on the ground, you're buying into the Russian propaganda.

Ps. The Russians use depleted uranium ammo too. Let's not be hypocritical here.

edit on 1-11-2015 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: tony9802
a reply to: Rosinitiate

it is absolutely not a coincidence that an airplane with Russian passengers flying from Egypt to St. Petersburg suddenly fell mechanically ill..

.


I agree 100%


The fallacy of hardcore conspiracy minds is the ridiculous belief that every timeline in the world is aware of each other or that they don't believe in coincidences .

Mechanical things break all the time and when they break up in the air bad things happen.

That isn't to say that it could not be a bomb or something nefarious but talking to Occam and based of the info avail I'm willing to bet it was some other benign explanation.


Well it's actually odds and mathematical probability is it not. Those odds increase when you look at certain factors. What exactly is a hardcore conspiracy mind anyway? One who questions things before the accept them?

Guilty as charged.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 08:29 AM
link   
So I dont think that ISIL is claiming they shot it down with shoulder fired missles, guess they had some more advanced surface to air missles. This could escalate and broaden into a more regional war. . . . .


REPORT SA-2 (S-75) MISSILE SHOT DOWN RUSSIA SINAI KOLAVIA FLIGHT 9268



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Rosinitiate
Care to share with us the mathematical equations you used to determine this with such certainly?

I myself am fairly certain, without doing any math, that mechanical failure has been way more common in bringing down commercial airliners than missiles.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
So I dont think that ISIL is claiming they shot it down with shoulder fired missles, guess they had some more advanced surface to air missles. This could escalate and broaden into a more regional war. . . . .


REPORT SA-2 (S-75) MISSILE SHOT DOWN RUSSIA SINAI KOLAVIA FLIGHT 9268

What a joke that video was.

I'm no fan of McCain, but the conclusions jumped to in that video are idiotic.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: nightbringr
a reply to: MysterX
But.....Russia isn't kicking anyone's ass. Furthermore, you missed the entire point of my post.

It would be to deter the West from confronting Russia, not ISIS.

And sorry, if you actually believe Russia somehow magically has ISIS on the ropes after a month and a half of bombing, and no boots on the ground, you're buying into the Russian propaganda.

Ps. The Russians use depleted uranium ammo too. Let's not be hypocritical here.


Russia managed to use its nuclear weapons as a deterrent very effectively for many decades, unlike the USA, without ever using one in anger.

To date, the US is the only country in the world to have ever used nuclear WMD during war...yet, the US was sufficiently deterred from using them against the USSR despite they never having fired any nukes in anger.

Truth is not propaganda. Russia IS getting the job done against ISIS, a job that the US has clearly demonstrated either a reluctance or inability to achieve in the time they have been running sorties in Syria and Iraq.

There's nothing magical about what Russia is doing against ISIS..it's simple, but effective round the clock bombing sorties pummelling the hell out of ISIS. No magic required, just commitment.

It's not hypocritical to state facts either mate...i'm seeing a pattern in your rhetoric here, you seem to think stating the fact that the West dumped tonnes of Depleted Uranium is somehow hypocritical?

How so?

Is it required that in order to state the well known facts about the tonnes of D.U. tipped munitions used by the West in the M.E., when talking about the fallout a hypothetical nuclear bombardment of the region would entail, one should also talk about anyone else's munitions they may or may not possess?

That's ridiculous. The point being made is Russia would more than likely be adverse to using nuclear weapons on an allied country's soil because of the certainty of radiological contamination and subsequent inhabitability of that allied region...decimating an allied country is not the smartest thing for an ally to do 'to help out' is it!

Besides...if this Russian airliner was brought down by ISIS or their affiliates, it is in direct retaliation for Russia pummelling the hell out of ISIS in the region.


It is particularly noteworthy that NO US airliner has been targeted and brought down by ISIS or their affiliates for the US action against them...you can draw your own conclusions as to why they would target a Russian jet, if Russia's successes against ISIS are all just propaganda..as indeed you seem to think they are.

Why do you think no commercial US assets are being targeted by ISIS, yet Russian assets, if indeed this aircraft was brought down by ISIS..are?

Let's put it this way...who would you attack first?

A man occasionally firing peas through a kids peashooter at your house, or a man driving a bulldozer full speed at your house, having already run over and demolished all of your outbuildings?

You can decide who's been firing peas, and who is driving the bulldozer mate.


edit on 1 11 2015 by MysterX because: typo



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Why has this thread to get so far off the stated topic?



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Nuclear strike in response to an airplane crash is a bit much, but I wouldn't put it past Putin.

We should start a competition on "most believable fake news writing"



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

Can you please research the proper use of "its" and "it's".

It makes you look like a journalist for Huffington Post or Business Insider when you get grammar wrong.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord




REPORT SA-2 (S-75) MISSILE SHOT DOWN RUSSIA SINAI KOLAVIA FLIGHT 9268


What report? All heard in the video was speculation and assumption.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: tony9802

I read this on BIN last night when it had 9 views.
I didn't post it here because after searching online I could find only one source......

The article states that the Russians have told the U.S they won't use nukes in the Ukraine or Georgia.
This is unnerving a bit because nobody will stop a strike on ISIS with these weapons which will lead to further escalation in the area. I don't care about ISIS, but dropping nukes on them isn't an acceptable action.

The U.S sending 50 commando's to Syria isn't going to help the situation either.
Opportunities for accidental deaths are sky high if military cooperation isn't sought.

If any of those commando's die by Russian hands......well it's pretty obvious what's next......


edit on 1-11-2015 by EA006 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
Russia managed to use it's nuclear weapons as a deterrent very effectively for many decades, unlike the USA, without ever using one in anger.

The USA saved untold hundreds of thousands of lives using their weapons in WW2. An invasion of mainland Japan would have cost many more lives than died in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Further, the Japanese brought it upon themselves. They instigated the war, committing many atrocities, and were responsible for many, many innocent deaths. I encourage you to look up the "Rape of Nanking".

originally posted by: MysterX
To date, the US is the only country in the world to have ever used nuclear WMD during war...yet, the US was sufficiently deterred from using them against the USSR despite they never having fired any nukes in anger.

M.A.D. will do that to you.

originally posted by: MysterX
Truth is not propaganda. Russia IS getting the job done against ISIS, a job that the US has clearly demonstrated either a reluctance or inability to achieve in the time they have been running sorties in Syria and Iraq.

It's propaganda when the naive believe it to be true. Care to show me a news source that isn't Russian propaganda that actually shows ISIS retreating? I still read of them executing people on a daily basis. Funny this is, people like you constantly rail on about "Western propaganda", and how we all fall for it, never once looking in the mirror and seeing that the same thing is happening to you.

originally posted by: MysterX
There's nothing magical about what Russia is doing against ISIS..it's simple, but effective round the clock bombing sorties pummelling the hell out of ISIS. No magic required, just commitment.

A group like ISIS will never be defeated without boots on the ground. All the bombing in the world wont change that.

originally posted by: MysterX
It's not hypocritical to state facts either mate...i'm seeing a pattern in your rhetoric here, you seem to think stating the fact that the West dumped tonnes of Depleted Uranium is somehow hypocritical?

You were pointing the finger at the USA for using depleted uranium, i'm simply saying they are not the only ones using them. Your beloved Putin used them in Georgia, Chechnya and you can be damn sure if they ever move heavy ground weapons into Syria, they will be used there too.

originally posted by: MysterX
It is particularly noteworthy that NO US airliner has been targeted and brought down by ISIS or their affiliates for the US action against them...you can draw your own conclusions as to why they would target a Russian jet, if Russia's successes against ISIS are all just propaganda..as indeed you seem to think they are.

Not certain, but perhaps US airlines are a little adverse to flying over an area of the world full of extremists?

originally posted by: MysterX
Why do you think no commercial US assets are being targeted by ISIS, yet Russian assets, if indeed this aircraft was brought down by ISIS..are?

See comment above. And honestly, do you think ISIS KNEW what nationality that plane was? They are the kind of idiots who would target any plane flying overhead.
edit on 1-11-2015 by nightbringr because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: tony9802

They did claim responsibility, yes. But in this thread our very own Zaphod speculates it was blocked pitot tubes that caused the crash, not terrorists.

I think this story is just people's imaginations running wild.


How can anyone say what it was before experts have taken a look???

Maybe the plane was hit when it was lower to the ground but didn't pull apart till further along its path?



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   
So this appears to be a response to their airliner going down, but it's ok when they shoot airliners down.
Not believing this story anyway.



posted on Nov, 1 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: babybunnies
a reply to: MysterX

Can you please research the proper use of "its" and "it's".

It makes you look like a journalist for Huffington Post or Business Insider when you get grammar wrong.



Do you have anything to say about either the thread topic, or the content of my post other than trolling on about the inclusion of a single misplaced apostrophe in the 'it's'?

The pen truly is mightier than the sword if you can be motivated to complain about a single, errant apostrophe rather than the content of the post to which you are referring.

Derailing a thread is not something ATS T&C particularly encourages...i don't necessarily mind grammar nuts, but i would prefer to discuss the topic at hand or individual posts regarding it, rather than accuracy of grammar...wouldn't you?




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join