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.

 

News U.S. Nuclear Weapon is a GAME CHANGER According to our Military Strategists.

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 07:51 AM
link   
I wanna ride this thing when they drop it.




posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: SecretsoftheBlueApples

This guy gets it.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX
How many ways do we need to blow up the world?

Anyhow, game changer? currently the game is don't use a effin nuke.
Anything that changes that game, I don't want part of regardless of what side "wins"

Game changer because the new line of thinking is if these bombs are dialed to a small enough yield, they can be used in the battlefield when previously they were taboo.

Dangerous thinking IMO.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: SecretsoftheBlueApples

The SS-18 warheads don't have a dial yield capability.

I live in a nation buddy where just one Russian ICBM(R-36) plus accompanying warheads would blanket the entire country with fire.

There is no winning scenario for the UK should things ever turn nasty.

Just a thought.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: SprocketUK


That's one of the things that intrigued me about the article. If Pakistan hits India, we could decide when the planes arrive whether to go after the Paki President hiding in his bunker, or wipe out the entire installation.


Maybe, or just, you know, stay out of it.


Perhaps things would have been better if both countries were still coloured pink on the map of the world?


We have a duty of care considering we armed them in the first place.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

That's not a thought, that's a fact. However, I can't see Russia throwing the first stone. It will be NATO who starts WW3.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

I wanna ride this thing when they drop it.





posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

They are still going to retaliate however and we are a pretty important prime target.

Fact is nuclear war does not bode well for the UK no matter how we try and slice it our island glows in the dark for the next 10,000 years or so.

We should never have gotten into the nuclear arms game just down to geography alone.
edit on 24-8-2018 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

And we wonder why the doomsday clock is now set to two minutes to midnight!



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

They are still going to retaliate however and we are a pretty important prime target.

Fact is nuclear war does not bode well for the UK no matter how we try and slice it our island glows in the dark for the next 10,000 years or so.

We should never have gotten into the nuclear arms game just down to geography alone.


Destroying our country won't stop our Submarines and our allies from retaliation.

MAD is still a thing bro.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

I ken that but M.A.D is mental.

And mental is as mental does.

M.A.D is not a tangible plan, no point in winning or even retaliation if nobody is around to celebrate.

M.A.D is sad.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: gort51

As much as I agree with your sentiments, other countries are still building them too. Doesn't make it right but it's a necessary evil.


No, it is entirely unnecessary evil.

Overkill (term) From Wikipedia



edit on 24/8/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: gort51

Nothing Wrong with a Bigger , Better " Big Stick " . Deterrence Keeps the Peace........

What was more effective in forcing North Korea to stop threatening its neighbors with rhetoric, missile launches and nuclear tests? Military Deterrence, or Economic Sanctions?


Ah, irony.




posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: SaturnFX
How many ways do we need to blow up the world?

Anyhow, game changer? currently the game is don't use a effin nuke.
Anything that changes that game, I don't want part of regardless of what side "wins"

Blowing up the world is an impossibility.
At least for now. Maybe a few hundred years from now....?



I know how.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
I was in Hiroshima for the anniversary a while back..

Some of the petitions questions were:

Q: Do nuclear weapons make the world safer?
Q: Have nuclear weapons stopped another World War?
Q: Should the nuclear weapon have been used?
Q: Will it be used again?

logically, i think you have to answer yes to every question.

I would much rather the US be the world leaders in this technology, instead of say... China or Sudan.


Who bombed Hiroshima?

Who is their political leader?



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: SecretsoftheBlueApples
It means we can wipe out all the leadership in Russia and China with just two B2s, without killing all the people in the entire surrounding area. A population doesn't need to be decimated, just the infrastructure and leaders. It is meant to scare the sh*t out of them in a friendly way. BTW it doesn't have to be a B2, F-15s have a neat suicide function, and have a super afterburner which makes them go faster than an SR-71's publicly stated speed.

Callsign: Skidmark

a reply to: carewemust




No. Dead Hand From Wikipedia

Taking out the leadership would end the US.



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

I wanna ride this thing when they drop it.


A saddle might interfere with its ballistic trajectory.




posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: andy06shake

That's not a thought, that's a fact. However, I can't see Russia throwing the first stone. It will be NATO who starts WW3.


Umm, national leaderships change.

And nukes have already been 'used in anger' against civilians.

It can happen again but now it will escalate unless one side self-sacrifices.


edit on 24/8/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2018 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

OMG, NATO started ww3 when they convinced Georgia there was a way they could gain membership back in 2009. As a result, Russians and Americans as well as both of their various irregular forces have been killing each other on various interconnected foreign battlefields in conjunction with their various allies since then. Ukraine, Syria, Georgia, Libya, Yemen, Philippines and Iraq all host soldiers and paramilitaries from dozens of nation's fighting each other under the guise of a global counter terrorism war.

I mean, did y'all really think that the world war in modern times would be fought with tens of thousands of people facing off at each other in massive trench warfare ?? That's quite the antiquated mindset to look at war with.

This fight I idlib Syria that has already begun is predicted to be the bloodiest battles to date in the new age.. Thus far, that title went to retaking mosul, Iraq.

Deployment of new armaments, munitions and battle doctrines, genocide, wmd usage, wholesale destruction of entire nation's and societies, intermixed multi continent warfare with the participation of at least a hundred different countries (count the alliances ppl, just like ww2 even smaller nation's you did not realize are involved to an extent), three biggest global powers confronting each other at various flash points.

In any case, regarding these nukes, they will be a great way of denying Iran the coastline and making them a landlocked state, thus limiting their ability to export terrorism against our staunchest allies. We can take out their shipyards, naval ports, and adjacent infrastructure and then land multinational ground campaign to establish a buffer zone between free Iran on the coast(south Iran??) And the terrorist theocracy north of them. It would ideally remove the threat of blocking the straight of Hormuz as they are so vocal about promising.



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 01:05 AM
link   
These new warheads are not being developed for fighting russia or china.

These are being developed for fighting a nuclear attack from Iran or north korea..

These will be used to take out the underground gun and rocket positions and other hardened command and control bunkers of north korea and the underground nuke labs and command and control bunkers of iran.




top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join