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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Nato puts 300,000 troops on ‘HIGH ALERT’ amid fears of all out confrontation with Russia

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Secretary General of Nato, Jens Stoltenberg, said the allied nations are putting hundreds of thousands of troops in a state of high alert in an effort to deter a mounting threat from Moscow.

While Nato cut its defence budget and military investment since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia has been bolstering its military capabilities, holding parades involving more than 100,000 troops each year.
SOURCE


Alternate source: Huge Nato land army to meet Russian aggression

I watched an amateur advertisement today that I feel sums up the situation.


www.youtube.com...

That ad describes simply and succinctly one reason why all of this is important. I've heard it theorized that the moment Clinton is sworn in as POTUS will be the moment Russia starts WW3. If Russia feels that WW3 is inevitable, that may be the rational move.

I realize the source of this article isn't the best, but they're quoting the Secretary General of Nato. I posted the following in another thread, but almost no one saw it. I think it bears repeating.

It seems the most popular tactic to derail topics in the WW3 forum right now is to change the topic to "nuclear war won't happen."

1. The "nuclear war won't happen" argument can't be proven because no one knows the future.

2. The "nuclear war won't happen" argument is a type of logical fallacy. The argument could be an example of the gambler's fallacy or an example of the appeal to tradition fallacy depending on how it's used.

3. The "nuclear war won't happen" argument is a red herring concerning all of the different ways that WW3 could happen.

The article linked to at the top of this post is confirmation that a U.S.-Russia war could break out in cyberspace soon. Where would things go from there? It may not seem like much, but anything could be dangerous at this point.
edit on 7-11-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Yeah, no.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 04:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Syria , like the Ukraine , is Not Worth A Nuclear War . I Blame the EU And America for this Situation . Weak Leadership Leads to Chaos .



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 04:17 AM
link   
It's about damn time someone blew up the world, I've only been waiting for 3 decades...

Unreal...



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 04:20 AM
link   
They are timing this perfectly for HC to take US into a war! Bunkers?



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 04:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

What I think is sad,most idiot's just laugh if you mention ww3,and say thats just a bunch of rhetoric regarding the election,the answer too far too many,Hillary already said she'll use nukes,and she is a crazy mean tempered woman unfit to rule anything,yet idiots feel she can get away with everything,people can't see our country is being taken from us before our very eyes,hate for us to be lobbing nukes around



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 04:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion

Secretary General of Nato, Jens Stoltenberg, said the allied nations are putting hundreds of thousands of troops in a state of high alert in an effort to deter a mounting threat from Moscow.


That ad describes simply and succinctly one reason why all of this is important. I've heard it theorized that the moment Clinton is sworn in as POTUS will be the moment Russia starts WW3. If Russia feels that WW3 is inevitable, that may be the rational move.



ByME: (formatting is messing up).

WW3 has been theorized here every day for years for any number of reasons.
edit on 7-11-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-11-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 04:49 AM
link   
I think UNs map of 10 regions explain a lot of the tention we see today between Russia and the US. And also Turkey, Syria and Iraq.

According to the map of 10 regions. Ukriane is to belong to the regional Power of Russia. But that is not happening since the US have put their foot Down.

I also recall Putin saying that the US is not fallowing the rules. I think Putin might be refering to a poste agreement made by the major Powers in the UN about these 10 future regional Powers.

I think both the US and Russia would go to war to protect their interests. And i think the UN map is a Clue to the conflicts we see today.

It also explains the US rocket Shield put in Place in easter europe.......The US are protecting their regional Power by doing this.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 04:50 AM
link   
Seems Hillary is already in charge.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 04:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

"Express" is a tabloid = fake news stories.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:02 AM
link   
As a brit i wouldn't trust the express at all, they just go for the easy sale and try and do what the daily mail does so well just with it'll snow, maddy and a bit on princess di all the time.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Maxatoria

I posted an alternative source in the original post:

Huge Nato land army to meet Russian aggression

Is The Times reliable enough?

a reply to: Oldtimer2

A big part of the reason I post WW3 threads is to read the nonsensical, childish replies. I don't know if it's hilarious or tragic.
edit on 7-11-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 05:51 AM
link   
The Russians just cut military spending by 30%.

That doesnt seem to fit very well with the narrative that Russia is intending to take over the world.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 06:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

What's this obsession you have with Russia? You do realize that the US has started mots major conflicts in the last 100 years. Try google, you'll be surprised



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 06:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion




A big part of the reason I post WW3 threads is to read the nonsensical, childish replies. I don't know if it's hilarious or tragic.


The minute I click on these Nato/Russia I know it's you spouting more nonsense. The good part is that you only usually have 1 or 2 posts in your threads, even you can't be bothered hanging around.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 06:26 AM
link   
Doom porn much? I mean really? Just STOP


You OP are literally the only one who posts this garbage. Russia and WW3 is no more of a threat than North Korea is with South Korea.

Let it go and move on to something actually constructive.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 06:32 AM
link   
Looks like a last countermeasure to try and influence the polls,they already blamed Russia for hacking the emails. .



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 06:44 AM
link   
These belittling posts trying to stifle the OP and others like him for your own post count and for the aforementioned joy of stifling is pretty lame tbf.

If you disagree with the OP that's your prerogative, why be rude? I'm assuming most of are over the age of understanding respect for your fellow man?

Back to the topic. Whilst I don't necessarily believe WW3 will come from Russia and the US in solitude, it's clear there's gearing up going on for something and now is the perfect time (elections) to bring it to the forefront. There'll be a culmination of "small" skirmishes that'll evolve IMO.

A waiting game...



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 06:49 AM
link   
OP you just can't let it go can you?
And where are the mods?
A long time ago you would lose your account.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 06:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: grayghost
OP you just can't let it go can you?
And where are the mods?
A long time ago you would lose your account.


I've started 71 threads in the WW3 forum and none of them have been closed or moved to the trash bin forum. What are you referring to?

You're posting in a thread with the following information:


Nato is organising the “biggest reinforcement of its collective defence since the end of the Cold War”
REUTERS

...

Jens Stoltenberg, the alliance’s secretary-general, did not give precise figures, but Sir Adam Thomson, Britain’s outgoing permanent representative to Nato, said he thought that the goal was to speed up the response time of up to 300,000 military personnel to about two months. At present a force of this size could take up to 180 days to deploy.
SOURCE


This news is undeniably huge and on-topic. People are complaining because it's been posted? We're reaching new lows here.


originally posted by: TemporalMental
These belittling posts trying to stifle the OP and others like him for your own post count and for the aforementioned joy of stifling is pretty lame tbf.

If you disagree with the OP that's your prerogative, why be rude? I'm assuming most of are over the age of understanding respect for your fellow man?


This is the strangest behavior yet in the WW3 forum. I understand the old "if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger" tactic, but claiming that this huge news isn't related to what's been going on for months concerning the NATO/Russia situation is simply denying reality. It could be that the reason so many here can't be reasoned with is because they're in denial.
edit on 7-11-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join