It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


US has more nuclear weapons in Europe than thought: report

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Seekerof
Ace, Ace.....
Israel listed as confirmed as to having nukes? Has Israel publically announced and verified that they do?

One word: Bormarc.
[edit on 9-2-2005 by Seekerof]

What about Vanunu? Oh that's right they shut him up for 18 years.

Would any nation, including the U.S., honestly lays their cards on the table when discussing the nuclear agenda.

It's tiring to constantly hear sanctimonious american rhetoric & saber rattling about who should have the privilege to bear nuclear arms. So long as the U.S has a high number, whatever it might be, then any other nation has the same right as well to manufacture them. I personally don't want to see that outcome but american jingoism permits it.

Ace: I'm with you.....load Canada up......just in case.


[edit on 9-2-2005 by brill]

posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 12:59 PM
by Dr. John M. Clearwater
Dundurn Press (Toronto) 1998

From 1963 to 1984 US nuclear warheads armed Canadian weapons systems in both Canada and Germany. It is likely that during the early part of the period, the Canadian military was putting more effort, money and manpower into the nuclear commitment than any other single activity. This important book is an operational-technical (W5) expose of the period. Its purpose is to bring together until-recently secret information about the nature of the nuclear arsenal in Canada, and combine it with known information about the systems in the US nuclear arsenal.

The work begins with an account of the efforts of the Pearson government to sign the Agreement with the US necessary to bring nuclear weapons to Canada in 1963. Subsequent chapters provide a detailed discussion of the four nuclear weapons systems deployed by Canada: the BOMARC surface-to-air guided interceptor missile; the HONEST JOHN short range battlefield rocket; the STARFIGHTER tactical thermonuclear bomber; and the VOODOO-GENIE air defence system. Each chapter also includes a section on accidents and incidents which occurred while the weapons were at Canadian sites. The final chapter covers the ultimately futile efforts of the Maritime Air Command and the Royal Canadian Navy to acquire nuclear anti-submarine weapons.

An appendix includes the texts of the secret agreement between Canada and the USA for provision of nuclear warheads; the four service-to-service arrangements for each weapons system; and the draft text of the consultation and authorization agreement of 1965 which laid out the means by which the Prime Minister would give permission to use nuclear weapons. The book also shows that there were cases in which the Prime Minister was not expected to be consulted, and it is shown that Pearson gave a letter of prior authorization to the US Ambassador for Presidential use. "

posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 01:16 PM

Originally posted by DrHoracid
So just where did I "attack" france in this thread.

Perhaps that is why I never directly accussed you of doing so. I infered that you may not like France from the general tone of your previous posts (and am aided by your recent post about French nuclear testing- beats me what that has to do with the price of tea in china) and so I linked your statement about US weapons being a threat to Europeans to your apparent dislike for France.

And I am a little dubious of and "recovering" neo-con that lives on the left coast.

I am widely respected as the worlds leading authority on what I do and don't believe. You'll just have to take my word for it when i say that from 1996 to 2003 I was overwhelmingly conservative both on foreign and domestic issues and when I found out what the PNAC was I not only liked them but dreamed that I may one day join their organization. Like many people who have only just begun to consider political issues I took a simplistic view which centered on my belief that all rule is by one means or another derived from force and therefore that war was in fact almost always the answer on one level or another. I was also a Satanist from 2000-2002, which might explain why I supported those views (not in that I worshipped Satan but in that I beleived in and rejected God as a tyrant who would cease to be God if he could be defeated).
Recently, having been exposed to a presidential election for the first time in what you might call my intellectual prime, having additional experiences in life to draw upon, and being a member of ATS I have begun to re-evaluate by beliefs from an honest and open-minded perspective. I consider myself a conservative in many ways still however I reject several assumptions which some might consider crucial to the conservative viewpoint on religion, foreign relations, and economics.
Because I am shifting away from the neo-conservative ideology and believe that said ideology was the result of being taken in by faulty assumptions, it is fair for me to say that I am "recovering".
Last but not least, the WEST coast is not so broadly dominated by liberals as you might think. Major cities tend to lean left, but the county electoral map which I display proudly on a t-shirt shows that California would be a red state if Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco were not so overwhelmingly liberal. It does bear mention that the places which lean left are home to institutions of higher learning and a great many successful people. In many issues their liberalism represents social norms and cultural differences as compared to less urbanized areas. In other issues however, the fact that intellectual and successful people tend to reject the Republican party probably should cause introspection on behalf of that party.

Perhaps ridiculous statements are better that a real mushroom cloud. Nuke threats don't just "go away" ever..................
Libs have no sense of humor anyway.

Well, at least you're right about -something-. Liberals take themselves more seriously than I appreciate sometimes. (Let's not forget that the Right has their share too though). Nothing turns me away from a group like vitriol and rhetoric. It's a wonder I can even live in this country during an election year.
I don't like over-the-top liberals who want make me my dog's pet or who want to keep welcoming illegals with open arms when I've got to fight for employment as things are already. But then I also dislike over-the-top conservatives who think a woman is murdering a baby every time she has her period or who think that they have a right to decide who can marry and who can't.
I have a sollution for this too. Conservatives lighten up by telling jokes about France. (Google for French Military Victories and click the first result and you'll see what I mean.) Liberals need something less serious than Bush to joke about so that they can unwind too. I think Liberals should make fun of Britain. Maybe if we work really hard at it we can get France and Britain into a war!

As for mushroom clouds- there aren't any mushroom clouds! Well, maybe in the pacific, but only when France is nuking Tahiti and GreenPeace. How in the hell can it be argued that threatening Europe not to get "brassy" is somehow connected to America's security through deterrence? Europeans have no desire to engage in a war with us. The conversation is about a non-existant aggressive deployment of nuclear weapons against peaceful nations which you have suggested. The only threat of mushroom clouds in this conversation is that if we did use nuclear threats to keep Europe from getting brassy that would motivate Europe to develop greater arsenals and the ensuing arms race would present more danger for the appearance of mushroom clouds than anything which might be prevented by these provocative actions you suggest.

<< 1   >>

log in