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: US Prepares Preemptive Nuclear Strike Plan in Asia Region

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2005 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trustnone
I dont know, you would think NK would test a nuke if they had one, just the sttitude they have, i am alittle skeptical because i think kim jong would blow one up if he had one.


If the latest reports are right we will find out sometime in June if they have a working bomb or not.

www.news.com.au...




posted on May, 2 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Who needs to get to know God a.s.a.p? Send U2U to request more info.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Who needs to get to know God a.s.a.p? Send U2U to request more info.


No thanks. I do not trust online gods, I prefer using my own church for any help I need.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   
The announcement of the preparation of such "new" plans is merely the confirmation of their pre-existence.
This is the equivalent of a warning shot across the bow.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Who the hell is Kdoyo News? the source alone sucks. You liberals really need a reality check


Stop jumping to conclusions or find a better source then running around acting like chicken little all the time.


I think this is totally uncalled for. There are tons of legitimate sources for this story. Why the political spin? What's your opinion on this, now that so many sources have been verified?

Zip



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   
saint4god
(from T&C)


12.) You agree not to cultivate the membership of the AboveTopSecret.com discussion boards for the sending of private messages (board U2U or e-mail) for the purposes of marketing, mass mailing, or recruitment for other groups (offline or online) such as activist groups or other online discussion board websites. You will not also seek to rally the membership of the AboveTopSecret.com discussion board for any cause withouot prior written permission from the site owner.

13.) You will not post messages that are clearly outside of the stated topic of any forums nor disrupt a forum by deliberately posting repeated irrelevant messages or copies of identical messages (also known as "flooding"). You will also not create threads or post messages announcing your departure from the board unless approved by me.


Shots
You're showing your bias there buddy. Just because the news source isn't 'shots approved' doesn't make the source any less credible. If you have a legitimate concern on their ability to bring us news, let's hear it. If you've just never heard of them, I would say that's your problem, not a problem stemming from the source.

Zipdot
I too would be curious to know the answer to the question you posed. Thanks for asking.


To the Point: Preemptive is the bone that catches in many a throat. The US got along fine for many years playing the role of the sleeping giant. This new doctrine is dangerous, foolhardy, and it's going to get people killed. It already has in fact.

Let's go back to the good ole days of "don't mess with us, and we won't mess with you."

As far as using nukes to stop an imminent threat from another country, I suppose that would be fine, if we could trust our officials to tell us the truth and not use any excuse to engage in war profiteering. If we could trust their judgement, this would be an easier sell. Problem is, they've proven their willingness, time and again, to lie, cheat, and manipulate information for the benefit of their private interests and religious persuasions.

And this has nothing to do with attacking Japan. Japan has been one of our staunchest allies, both in the region, and around the world. We would sooner attack Canada or Great Britain. Saying this plan is about limiting Japan's ability to produce nukes flies in the face of logic.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   
the fact that we may blow some small country up if they threaten us is a big DUH!
so why even say so?
I really hope this is just sabre rattling...
having the US truly threaten to make a preemptive strike is giving up on any trust we had as a country that developed from the survival of the cold war...
Arrogant at best... evil at worst



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 12:23 PM
link   
This is just simply posturing. It has been going on forever, it just rises to being news worthy every so often. Back in the 60's and 70's, these same staements were being aired but instead of the target being NK, it was Russia and Vietnam.
There are plenty of contingency plans not only in the uS but in every nation in the world. Many would probably surprise you and many would go along way in supporting conspiracy theorists. Anything from premptive strikes to turning opposing military into gays to even fighting off an alien attack.

When I was stationed in SK, I remember an article in the Start and Stripes of an ultimatum made by the US (specifically to ASIA) to the world that basically stated that if you (the enemy) used, Nuclear, biological, chemical weapons, the US would use it nuclear arsenal to make a new glass factory.

Remember the old saying "Talk softly but carry a big stick" that has not been the case since teddy rosevelt's time.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Sorry, I couldn't get passed the first page of crap like"Oooh, we don't have to worry about retirement because we're all going to diiiiieeeee!" stuff.

Any of you have any recollection of the Cold War? Any of you noticed how weakness invites disaster, Strength and the willingness to use strength is deterrence in itself?

I swear! a backbone is needed, so grow one! It was Reagan's plans that won the Cold War, not Carter's.

Here's the kicker- Reagan hated nuclear weapons and dreaded the thoughts of any of them being used. That is why he built up the nuclear capability - so that they wouldn't HAVE to be used.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnMature
Would it even be possible for Korea to strike any other section of the United States besides the west coast with nuclear weapons? And does anyone know what the estimated number of nuclear weapons N. Korea has in its possesion is?


Does it really matter if they can only hit the west coast?



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Well, speaking as one who lives in Alabama, Maurid.......


Just kidding. If you hit one of us; you hit all of us. That is, of course, until the media tells us we deserved it, people start questioning what our REAL motives are for retaliation, Richard Gere wants us to hold hands and chant, and.....well, you get the picture.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Are you kidding me TC? Do you think that if the US got nuked, people wouldn't want to go to war over that? People questioned the intelligence of who perpetrated 9/11 and of the reasons for going to Iraq and rightfully so they did!!

I'm sorry, but likening the reaction to the war in Iraq to a nuclear strike on the US speaks of a lack of rational thinking.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Are you kidding me TC? Do you think that if the US got nuked, people wouldn't want to go to war over that? People questioned the intelligence of who perpetrated 9/11 and of the reasons for going to Iraq and rightfully so they did!!

I'm sorry, but likening the reaction to the war in Iraq to a nuclear strike on the US speaks of a lack of rational thinking.


I think you misunderstood him, I think he has saying "you nuke us, we'll level you entire country", and he has talking about the "left" media, like The NY Times & Washington post.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   
If that's what he's saying, than I don't think I misunderstood him. I think the significant majority of America, including any "left-wing" media, will roll up in arms to level said country. Assuming we know who the country is...



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Are you kidding me TC? Do you think that if the US got nuked, people wouldn't want to go to war over that? People questioned the intelligence of who perpetrated 9/11 and of the reasons for going to Iraq and rightfully so they did!!


We were attacked by radical Muslims yet we have had people yelling and bashing at the US for going after some of the radical Muslim groups, and even a country which might not have been directly involved in 9/11, but have shown several times an interest and willingness to help and even participate with other radical Muslims on attacking the US and US interests.



Originally posted by Jamuhn
I'm sorry, but likening the reaction to the war in Iraq to a nuclear strike on the US speaks of a lack of rational thinking.


A lack of rational thinking is when people still claim that the government had something to do with 9/11 when every intelligence source from around the world points to the fact that it was done by groups of radical Muslims, and that there are still radical Muslim groups that want to attack not only the US but every western country in the world....

So please....don't start talking about "a lack of rational thinking"....


[edit on 2-5-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Oh, oh, no you didn't!


But seriously, look at the words you are using...a group of radical muslims. Do you understand how many muslims are in the world today? Perhaps there are around 2 billion worldwide, depending on the source used. How many muslim countries are there? There are perhaps about 50 countries that are predominantly Muslim.

Now tell me, who is the US going after? The US is going after, comparably, a handful of Muslims in one third of the world population. Now, you are going to tell me, that we are justified in attacking any Muslim/muslim country we see fit? We just say, "hey look, there are muslim radicals, let's bomb them." And in the face of all the significant intelligence failures over the past years, you are asking the entire world to blindly follow whoever we say is trying to "take our freedoms"?

Sorry, but I, and a significant population of the US simply to do not trust US intelligence on this level, and in light of recent events, I don't see why they would.

If you want to talk about 9/11, there are a myriad of theories available. The government offers one theory, one theory supported by countries after the fact. And let's not forget how the intelligence of other countries have failed on the same key points as the US. We could talk about the shaky linkage between "radical Muslims" and muslims of the world.

We could even talk about the US support of countries supporting terrorism and even the US' support itself. But, that's beyond this conversation because we are focused on eradicating the "radical Muslims," whoever they may be.

Sorry Muaddib, but I don't buy it. I don't buy demolishing entire countries looking for handfuls of people. But, like I said, in case of a nuclear strike, just like after 9/11, the country will be united in finding the perpetrators whoever they may be.

The entire argument I provided and you quoted was that there will be no lying down in case of a nuclear strike, just as there wasn't after 9/11. The country, in fact, was blinded by the events, and shedding blame on any country would have been suitable. We could have blamed Iraq, and I guarantee you the country would have been united at the start of such war.

But, hindsight shows us what we were blinded from. It is hindsight that let a significant portion of the population to question the intelligence of their governments and of their motives.

It may be easier for you to believe what the government dishes out, but logic shows me as well as others a different story. If you want to discuss 9/11 and Iraq, I can point you out to many other threads about these topics.

But, what I said still stands, in case of a nuclear strike, this country will stand together. The question is who we are going to take our agression out on, and if we will be going after the right people/country. From now on, simply stating "a group of radical Muslims" is not enough for me.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot

Originally posted by shots
Who the hell is Kdoyo News? the source alone sucks. You liberals really need a reality check


Stop jumping to conclusions or find a better source then running around acting like chicken little all the time.


I think this is totally uncalled for. There are tons of legitimate sources for this story. Why the political spin? What's your opinion on this, now that so many sources have been verified?

Zip


Sure there are now however when the story was first posted there werent and I am not the only one that mentioned the source. There was no spin on my part alone other questioned it as well.


Seems to me this type of news published on ATS should be ratified by another News Source - yes? Certainly before it could possibly be published on our WebSite.

Dallas


Next time rather then single one out single out all ok?

[edit on 5/2/2005 by shots]



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Oh Geez, we're still on the source? Sorry it wasn't your precious FOX or CNN. Here's a simple google search


www.google.com... oint+Nuclear+Operations&hl=en&lr=&tab=nw&ie=UTF-8&sa=N

I guess the Washington Times and Japan Times aren't good enough.


[edit on 2-5-2005 by Jamuhn]



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Oh Geez, we're still on the source? Sorry it wasn't your precious FOX or CNN.
[edit on 2-5-2005 by Jamuhn]


uhm I was not talking about the source I was referring to the fact that others had also questioned the source yet for some reason you wanted to single me out when you should have addressed everyone that questioned the first source.

See my previous reply it included the other invidual that also questioned the orginal source and please keep in mind at that time there were no other sources there was only ONE



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   
No, I didn't single you out, I think you are referring to someone else, perhaps the person you quoted the first time?


But, as you'll see from my original post, I did provide another source, namely the Washington Times. And since then, some more have popped up.

[edit on 2-5-2005 by Jamuhn]



new topics




 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join