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.

 

Pentagon considers changing nuclear retaliation rules

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Washington (CNN)The Pentagon is considering recommending a change in policy regarding the use of nuclear weapons that could potentially open the door to a US nuclear response to a massive cyberattack, according to a defense official familiar with a draft of the Trump administration's Nuclear Posture Review who cautions it is not final. Previously, a nuclear response has not been on the table for responding to most non-nuclear threats against the US. But the language in this particular draft of the review could potentially allow for a nuclear response to a cyberattack on US infrastructure, the official noted. Trump is about to put his mark on the US nuclear arsenal Trump is about to put his mark on the US nuclear arsenal While cyberattacks on the US are downplayed in the report, the official said, the implication is that there could be a US nuclear response if there was a devastating cyberattack on US infrastructure such as power grids, although that specific scenario is not mentioned.



Are they trying to start a Nuclear war ? This would open the door for many False Flags how could the public trust this ?
edit on 1/18/2018 by Gargoyle91 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Gargoyle91

Those are really good questions OP.
It's scary to be sure.
Nuclear weapons are pure evil and should be completely banned for the sake of humanity.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Gargoyle91

Can you post the source please? This is a pretty big move, if they decide to do it.

Maybe they should put extra emphasis on IT security rather than first looking at how we can retaliate with nuclear weapons.... just saying



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Gargoyle91

any use of nuclear weapons is idiotic. The fact that we have them is enough of a problem without the actual WANTING to use them.

It's called MAD. look it up.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

www.cnn.com... osture-review-draft/index.html



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Gargoyle91
It’s our response to the growing super power of Canada. But on topic I think this is a very stupid decision and I get a feeling that something is going on.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 03:25 PM
link   
its a word game. nuclear weapons is a placeholder term for a new weapon we have. it's a lot more precise that a nuke but also very benign (relatively) to anything other than the target whether it be big or small.

it's the usa way of telling certain eastern countries that well gladly use this tool on you with even the slightest justification so simmer down, stay in your lane, and shut up when grown folks is talking or well smack you back into your corner to cry it off ....again
edit on 18-1-2018 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Here's some cosmic irony: Given the stellar job the alphabet agencies have done keeping all those nasty little cyber tricks under lock and key, imagine if the USA gets hit by a massive cyberattack with a cyberweapon we cooked up, and this lovely little change in policy is in effect...

All kinds of innocent men, women, and children could be vaporized by the USA because of the stupid crap we spent billions of dollars developing over the years. Our missles, our code, someone else's really bad day.

Any wonder we're not so popular?
edit on 18-1-2018 by Gandalf77 because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-1-2018 by Gandalf77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 04:07 PM
link   
If we can get past the silly ideology that "OMG, nuclear weapons are so evil, we should never, EVER even have them, let alone consider using them" and move on to the reality of "There are potentially rogue and/or hostile nations in the world today which possess nuclear weapons, meaning it would be a really dumb idea for the US to flinch in any way where mutually assured destruction is concerned," we will understand this change in policy a lot better. Let's face a simple fact, the country's lifeblood is now cyber-integrated. Take out the power grid for the country and you've crippled that country just as surely as it would have been crippled 50 years ago had Russia launched a few nukes at major US hubs. People would die in such a cyber attack, as well. A lot of people depending on circumstances. Knock out the power grid in Minneapolis in January and folks would freeze within 24 hours. Knock it out in Phoenix in July and scores would die of heat related illness. Knock it out in a place like LA or NYC and the riots would kill more than a strategic small yield nuclear strike could ever dream of killing. So yeah, considering the devastating effects a major cyber attack could have on this country, I'd sure as hell hope that whatever country was behind such action would see their capital rendered to a smoldering crater within 30 minutes of US Intel determining who did it.

So why the policy change? Simple... make sure those foreign countries' leaders KNOW that a major cyber attack on the US coming from their country will result in a United States boot straight up their ass, stomp a mudhole and walk it dry style. Fear steadies hands and cools heads a lot faster than singing Kumbaya and holding hands around a fire does where geopolitics are concerned.
edit on 18-1-2018 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yes, but it's just not that simple. Let's say that the Short Fat One goes raving mad in Pyongyang and orders a cyber attack on the USA and someone responded by nuking the capital of North Korea. Prevailing winds at that latitude are West to East, so that means that the fallout rains down on Japan, with some possibly falling on South Korea. That's obviously a major issue for both countries.
Nuclear weapons are such massive threats for a reason - they are weapons of a size and scope that make their use almost unthinkable. Talk about single usage for specific threats... well, I'd be interested in knowing what the thoughts of a nuclear expert would be.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 04:19 PM
link   
First red flag(pun intended)

CNN.



Washington (CNN)The Pentagon is considering recommending a change in policy regarding the use of nuclear weapons that could potentially open the door to a US nuclear response to a massive cyberattack, according to a defense official familiar with a draft of the Trump administration's Nuclear Posture Reviewwho cautions it is not final.


www.cnn.com...

CNN fear mongering again.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Nuclear weapons covers a wide spectrum of devices and functions. There are plenty of them available that do not release a mushroom cloud, don't create the airborne disaster you're concerned about, and don't render the blast site uninhabitable for years. If the Short Fat One attacks my country, I honestly don't think "Oh, what will happen to Japan" should be the primary concern of this country's leaders in preparing their retaliation.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I know, I know. Peace is such an absurd notion.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6




Nuclear weapons covers a wide spectrum of devices and functions.


EMP!

A proportional response to a cyber attack.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gandalf77
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I know, I know. Peace is such an absurd notion.


Pray for peace, but always be prepared for war. Let's look at this from a rational point of view... This isn't the USA positioning itself to be the aggressor, it is the USA positioning itself to defend America and America's interests, period. No country in the history of Earth has won a war through pacifisim, but history is sure as hell littered with the corpses of "peace at all costs" cultures who refused to acknowledge this is a cruel world with a lot of evil, good for nothings who only understand the language of death. At the end of the day, I'd much rather be the side standing there drenched in my enemy's blood and guts than laying in a ditch, bled out and dead with my fingers rigormortised in a peace sign.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Gandalf77
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I know, I know. Peace is such an absurd notion.


Pray for peace, but always be prepared for war. Let's look at this from a rational point of view... This isn't the USA positioning itself to be the aggressor, it is the USA positioning itself to defend America and America's interests, period. No country in the history of Earth has won a war through pacifisim, but history is sure as hell littered with the corpses of "peace at all costs" cultures who refused to acknowledge this is a cruel world with a lot of evil, good for nothings who only understand the language of death. At the end of the day, I'd much rather be the side standing there drenched in my enemy's blood and guts than laying in a ditch, bled out and dead with my fingers rigormortised in a peace sign.


We reap what we sow...



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Wishful thinking I know, but ALL modern weapons should be eliminated with a return to swords, archers, and calvary.

Besides wars, can you imagine gangbangers in this day and age going at each other with broad swords and shields???

You would actually have to fight!!

Guns are too easy and promote cowardice in those individuals who won't put up their dukes.

Certain aspects of nuclear power and technology should have never made to the weapons division.

That's the problem. Anything new that comes along is vetted for its potential use as a weapon.

In many ways, we suck as a species.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gandalf77
We reap what we sow...


Where is it written that we have to just take that end and do nothing to prevent it? If we have the ability to not reap what we've sown, what fool would pass up that opportunity?



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Gandalf77
We reap what we sow...


Where is it written that we have to just take that end and do nothing to prevent it? If we have the ability to not reap what we've sown, what fool would pass up that opportunity?


In the same place where it's written that we should have had the brains not to invent those ends in the first place.



posted on Jan, 18 2018 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Dose this include foreign and domestic? Reasoning for this crazy question is "What if".



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join