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.

 

Would Deploying Nukes Be a Measured Response to Bio-Weapons Attack

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2020 @ 01:04 AM
link   
I recall briefly China accusing maybe the Pentagon or perhaps the USA in general of being party to some bio attack relating to this Y2K redux Cover story-19 virus. While this was clearly a ludacris statement, we could ask what is a worst case scenario for this potential as a driver of foreign policy??

Could radicals in The Communist party somehow muster enough votes or pledges or whatever their inner party system does for power to authorize a retaliatory tactical nuclear response?? I believe it has been wrongly speculated that China would not be a first strike aggressor in some circles and think tanks.

What if this belief drives their internal policy and they believe this to take an extreme measure?? What if it were vice versa?? If I had been attacked by a biological WMD, is it not justified to respond with another WMD???

You are the empire of you. A foreign rival is attacking your lands with corpses and animals infected with disease. Or aerosolized stuff. We got tactical tiny nukes. Got em as small as we can vaporize the volume of a box van. Is that creepy?? Not much different than a standard bomb at that I guess.

So do you drop tactical nukes at the facilities that created and deployed these WMD bio weapons?? Would that be a measured response to a biological attack??




posted on Mar, 14 2020 @ 02:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
I recall briefly China accusing maybe the Pentagon or perhaps the USA in general of being party to some bio attack relating to this Y2K redux Cover story-19 virus. While this was clearly a ludacris statement


Why exactly is this a ludicrous statement?

The U.S is a country that has engaged in a lot of war over the last couple of centuries, more so than many other nations out there.

The U.S also has a higher than most history of using WMD's, and they're the only known nation to have actually used nuclear weapons against their enemies. Not even the Russians, Chinese or Middle Eastern terrorists types have done anything even close to that.
The U.S has a record of not only using biological and chemical agents in war against foreigners, like agent orange. But it also has a history of using drugs, chemicals and biological agents on its own citizens.
Using them in the kind of experiments people could imagine the Nazis doing. (Except even the Nazis didn't do such things to their own fellow Germans, well the non-Jewish ones any way.)

Spraying viruses over whole U.S towns to see how a enemy bio-attack would spread killing quite a few innocent people in the process. Releasing agents on public subway train systems. Intentionally infecting people with syphilis and more. Probably even more than we know about.

Amazingly everyone seems to turn a blind eye to when the U.S does such things. Some can even justify it. because 'Murica F**K YEAH!

Then we have the whole 'swine flu in the mail' thing from a couple of decades back. Remember when something like swine flu humans, specifically American ones, had been tampering with got sent through the public mail system.
Don't recall anyone saying back then "Why the hell were they genetically modifying an already deadly virus?"
But it shows America does indeed do biological engineering on deadly things that are flu like.

So if we choose not to ignore the factual history of the U.S of A doing bad # to everyone including their own people, why is it ludacris to think they wouldn't use a biological weapon on a foreign super power who rivals if not surpasses their own 'might' and has a firm financial grip on America?

If anything looking at the evidence of how the U.S treats it's own and even worse how it treats non-Americans it would be ludicrous to not consider it as a very viable assumption to make.

The U.S is not as pure and squeaky clean as many Americans wish it was. What makes it unlike any other nation is the fact its people allow itself a free pass on terrible deeds that they'd call a war crime or violation of human rights if anyone else did them.

Hell, the U.S probably has more WMD's than any other nation on the planet.

As to the rest, no. it's never right to use nukes. And thankfully the fact nobody has used them to date since Japan on each other shows most world powers would probably agree.
If anything they should just be outlawed altogether. They will never be used offensively, and are just a flip the table move when someone loses. The ultimate tit for tat kiddy tantrum that punishes everyone regardless.

So nah, screw nukes.

I would not be surprised if this is some peoples attempts to reset the worlds financial system.
Economically destabilize ones 'enemies'.

C'mon we're talking about humans here. There are many who would happily use genetically modified weapons designed to wipe out specific races and nations if they could. Not just Americans but all around the world.

It's foolish to ignore that while 50% of humans are probably good. The reality is other 50% are absolute pieces of # that would throw their own mother under a bus for a few bucks.

But yeah, I for one sincerely think the U.S or another TPTB throwing a virus at China is definitely plausible.Not saying they have done so, just saying the possibility should never be discounted. Especially when their reputation preceedes them.

I mean honestly, if we're not in denial the U.S since world war 2 has been involved in all of the worlds troubles. If not the cause, they've got a hand in it.
edit on 14-3-2020 by AtomicKangaroo because: typos, probably more in their, they're, there.




posted on Mar, 14 2020 @ 02:09 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Yeah lets deal with nuclear fallout/winter as well as current affairs.

What a stupid shortsighted question.



posted on Mar, 14 2020 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Sounds like some "aerosolized" bull s h i t you got going on there.

Do YOU believe that tactical nuclear strikes are at all warranted ?

And what could you do stop anyone radicalized or capable of doing so?

I can't do nothing about it, except consider that anything is possible if you willing.

Or are you really suggesting that the USA possibly weaponized a virus against Communist china ? I agree that seems possible.



posted on Mar, 14 2020 @ 02:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: CthruU
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Yeah lets deal with nuclear fallout/winter as well as current affairs.

What a stupid shortsighted question.


We deserve a plague

Darwin would be proud



posted on Mar, 14 2020 @ 02:13 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

No....



posted on Mar, 14 2020 @ 02:27 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

For years the US doctrine was to respond in kind. With the reduction of our bio/chem weapon stocks, it was quietly known that if we were ever able to confirm that a large scale bio weapon attack was unleashed, and we responded in kind, the response would be nuclear. There were other, lower level responses that were available too however.



posted on Mar, 14 2020 @ 02:36 AM
link   
a reply to: AtomicKangaroo
Wow . That sure was a lot of words there.
Why didn't you just sum it up with...
"I hate the US"
Would have saved us all a lot of eye strain.
You , a lot of words.
And ATS a lot of space.



posted on Mar, 14 2020 @ 02:43 AM
link   
If they really believe that (and I highly doubt. It's more likely it was mishandled by their precious Wuhan lab) then I would expect some bio attack on US soil. It would need to be something that wouldn't strike them back and wouldn't kill Europe as well. China has money only for as long as they have customers



posted on Mar, 14 2020 @ 02:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Its actually possible to be critical about something without hating it....



posted on Mar, 14 2020 @ 02:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: AtomicKangaroo
Wow . That sure was a lot of words there.
Why didn't you just sum it up with...
"I hate the US"
Would have saved us all a lot of eye strain.
You , a lot of words.
And ATS a lot of space.


I never said I hated the U.S. I hate it no more or less than any other country. I just don't choose to selectively pick what suits me when it comes to looking at things. There is as much good and bad as with any nation, as with any humans.
I'm just stating reality pal.

But thanks for putting words into my mouth. That will no doubt earn you stars from the blindly and overly emotionally patriotic on here.

My favorite thing about the internet would have to be seeing what context people will change to suit them what they'll add and subtract from others writings to make reality fit what they want it to be. Well done.

You can guarantee every time I say "the sky is blue and the grass is green" someone will come along and say "how dare you say the sky is yellow and you want to have sex with my mom"

lol, never gets old.

edit: oh and my words seem to have triggered you and hurt ya feelz. excellent.
edit on 14-3-2020 by AtomicKangaroo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2020 @ 04:03 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry


Could radicals in The Communist party somehow muster enough votes or pledges or whatever their inner party system does for power to authorize a retaliatory tactical nuclear response?? I believe it has been wrongly speculated that China would not be a first strike aggressor in some circles and think tanks.


As soon as they launch we can detect that their nukes are headed our way. We launch back immediately.

Then what does China do? Do suppose they could then invade us? How? They can't take out our entire military and they have no navy to speak of. They would be sitting ducks. We would obliterate them in the aftermath. They cant take us, they know it. So don't worry about them attacking us first.



posted on Mar, 14 2020 @ 04:15 AM
link   
George Bush told Saddam during the first gulf war if he used chemical weapons we would use nukes.



posted on Mar, 14 2020 @ 04:20 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

In a word, NO.

There's a reason that the most drastic action that you can take is called "the nuclear option".

A measured response would be a small tactical strike on a military target using conventional munitions. Something to show the enemy that you can and will hurt them. Done in an effort to ward off a wider conflict.



posted on Mar, 14 2020 @ 04:34 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry




Could radicals in The Communist party somehow muster enough votes or pledges or whatever their inner party system does for power to authorize a retaliatory tactical nuclear response??

No.



So do you drop tactical nukes at the facilities that created and deployed these WMD bio weapons?? Would that be a measured response to a biological attack??

No.

This is not a biological attack just as SARS and MERS weren't biological attacks.



posted on Mar, 14 2020 @ 04:41 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Yeah man. Let's party M.A.D. like the 80s.

For the ones that don't understand M.A.D. It's Mutually Assured Destruction.



posted on Mar, 14 2020 @ 05:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: worldstarcountry

For years the US doctrine was to respond in kind. With the reduction of our bio/chem weapon stocks, it was quietly known that if we were ever able to confirm that a large scale bio weapon attack was unleashed, and we responded in kind, the response would be nuclear. There were other, lower level responses that were available too however.

Wouldn't bother me at all for a D5 to be delivered to the ground at each Chinese BSL-4 site. Takes just three minutes. No time for _anyone_ to respond.

Let the government not say a word ... but the action speak for itself.

Bet we'd never see a bio-weapon again.



posted on Mar, 14 2020 @ 06:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: CthruU
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Yeah lets deal with nuclear fallout/winter as well as current affairs.

What a stupid shortsighted question.


Fallout from destroying a few buildings?



posted on Mar, 14 2020 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: AtomicKangaroo

Our nukes saved lives. Good thing we dropped those nukes on Japan, and even many Japanese might agree with that. 🇺🇸
🤳💪👈
God bless America. If our military suddenly vanished, the entire world would be at war. Only the fear of our bombs keeps evil at bay, FAR WORSE than the petty nonsense you like to complain about. You only have your own scale of bad and good available to you based on what you've seen and experienced. You're not aware that this, what we are experiencing right now, is actually REALLY GOOD compared to what Could be or what Has been.

But I get it. We humans are programmed to improve. Even if everything was perfect, people would find something to protest about.

No matter how perfect it gets (and we are far from perfect btw, that's not what I'm saying. we weren't meant for perfection) there will be some kid who only got 2 birthday presents instead of 10 and someone will organize a "never again" campaign and people will be made to feel guilty if they don't help "to ensure all children have equal presents".


edit on 3/14/2020 by 3n19m470 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2020 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: sunkuong
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Sounds like some "aerosolized" bull s h i t you got going on there.

Do YOU believe that tactical nuclear strikes are at all warranted ?

And what could you do stop anyone radicalized or capable of doing so?

I can't do nothing about it, except consider that anything is possible if you willing.

Or are you really suggesting that the USA possibly weaponized a virus against Communist china ? I agree that seems possible.


UM, yes tactical nuke strikes are "warranted" in many potential cases.




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join