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.

 

US ready to launch nuke attacks on hostile countries: Report

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   



The United States is now ready to attack, if necessary with nuclear arms, hostile countries developing weapons of mass destruction, media reports said.

Early last summer, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved a top secret 'Interim Global Strike Alert Order' directing the military to assume and maintain readiness to attack hostile countries that are developing weapons of mass destruction, specifically Iran and North Korea, the Washington Post reported.

Two months later, Bruce Carlson, commander of the 8th Air Force, had said that his fleet of B-2 and B-52 bombers had changed its way of operating so that it could be ready to carry out such missions.

"We are now at the point where we are essentially on alert," Carlson said in an interview with the Shreveport Times.

"We have the capacity to plan and execute global strikes," he said adding that his forces were the US Strategic Command's "focal point for global strike" and could executive an attack "in half a day or less."

"Global strike has become one of the core missions for the Omaha-based Strategic Command or Stratcom. Once, Stratcom oversaw only the nation's nuclear forces. Now it has responsibility for overseeing a global strike plan with both conventional and nuclear options.

"President Bush spelled out the definition of 'full-spectrum' global strike in a January 2003 classified directive, describing it as "a capability to deliver rapid, extended range, precision kinetic (nuclear and conventional) and non-kinetic (elements of space and information operations) effects in support of theatre and national objectives," it said.

Stratcom's contingency plan--CONPLAN 8022-02--for dealing with "imminent" threats from countries such as North Korea or Iran "is different from other war plans in that it posits a small-scale operation and no 'boots on the ground.'


Full article

Gosh, this is scary.


IMO USA should practise before preaching.




posted on May, 15 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Now this part scares me most:

"President Bush spelled out the definition of 'full-spectrum' global strike in a January 2003 classified directive, describing it as "a capability to deliver rapid, extended range, precision kinetic (nuclear and conventional) and non-kinetic (elements of space and information operations) effects in support of theatre and national objectives"

...if the President knew how to Spell.

So I guess its going to be a Long Hot Summer, huh?

[edit on 15/5/05 by Souljah]



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   
scary, but this is more about scaring a nation, i dont think the US would ever attack another country with nuclear arms. Bush might not be the smartiest cookie in the tin, but he ain't stupid, he wouldn't risk nuclear holocaust, he's not a terrorist.



Gosh, this is scary.



Its scary, but i doubt it would result in nuclear action.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   
This is nothing new to me. Past American Presidents and their administrations always planned contingency nuclear strikes in any major event, given the changing situations and Cold War-era geopolitics of the times.

This being said if there is a reasonable validation of the use of nuclear strikes resulting from any large-scale, including chemical, biological or nuclear, attack on the American interests and lives either on domestic and/or foreign soil.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   
We're not going to nuke anyone, so I wouldn't be too alarmed. These are just policies that we need to have in place should a situation ever arrise where all options have been exhausted and the nuclear one is all that's left. I hope it never comes to that. But I have all the confidence in our government and armed forces. I know they would NEVER take the decision to use nuclear weapons lightly. We've had them for 60 some years now, and we've been a hell of a lot closer to using them in the past (Cold War) than we are today. Don't let the hippies get you all excited. It's just propaganda.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I thought there were other threads about this, but anyway it sounds logical to me! We paid a hell of a lot of money for those nuclear weapons, why let our boys die when one of those can take care of the job?



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Everyone check this thread out too :

North Korea to Conduct Nuclear Tests in June:Top Russian Politician




[edit on 15-5-2005 by Stealth Spy]



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 10:29 PM
link   
As a former Cold War Air Force avionics tech., this is not real news people. We played this game for more that 40 yrs. with the former Soviets and we were playing it while I was in during the late 70's and early 80's. If push came to shove we would and we will conduct war as the situation and the need requires. It's all part of how the world operates. There are, and always have been contingencies for nuclear war, and there are several scenarios in which population centers,(i.e. cities) are considered expendable and acceptable losses.

Raise your hand if you remember doing nuclear air raid drills in school. I Do.

This scared the H#ll Out of me then and it still does, nevertheless, it is a real part of the world we exist in. The fall of the Former Soviet Union did not end anything, it only diversified the situation. We are experiencing that diversification now.
But don't worry, it is still unlikely that we will be the first to pull the trigger this time. It is much more likely that the bad guys slip under the wire unnoticed and dirty bomb some nice small sized city, justifying our obvious rage and reprisals, globally. And I want you to take particular notice of how quickly after the attack or attacks, the US Gov't. has a list of likely suspects. The same scenario as 911 will play out again,' We Knew Nothing Before Hand, But We Will Get Them Now' ,. This sad routine is likely to continue for awhile longer.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I thought there were other threads about this, but anyway it sounds logical to me! We paid a hell of a lot of money for those nuclear weapons, why let our boys die when one of those can take care of the job?


Your avatar is bad enough. But actually promoting nuclear war? That has got to be insane.

What is it that people like you, do not understand, about the ecological ramifications of nuclear armaments? We can not continue to produce, and or use nuclear weapons, without severe consequeces. Not just for the planet, but for the earths population as well.

People who like war soo much should go to war, and not be afraid of losing life when in the process of taking life.

Nuclear weapons are the moral equivalent of shooting an un-armed man, especially when considering the countries we are most likely to nuke.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin

Your avatar is bad enough. But actually promoting nuclear war? That has got to be insane.



There are worse avatars around...portraying communist sobs as heros and cool...
and even some having a message like islam will conquer the world by force of arms and the koran, etc....

Dj's avatar is good. President Reagan was a good man....despite what some people claim.

BTW the Russians and the Chinese have similar plans... Other countries like NK probably have nuclear contigency plans that are worse than ours.

[edit on 15-5-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 11:34 PM
link   
The US initiating nulcear war or lauching nukes is not going to happen.
Of course we have contingency plans for just about type of scenerio that could possibly arise, hell we even have a "take over canada" plan...but that's not gonna happen.

All this paranoia is is just what it is...being paranoid over nothing.

Like someone else said...Bush may not be the smartest, his grammer sucks, he can't read, but he aint no dumb-arse and the people under him that would have to make that decision are not either.

It's a last resort in case we have no other option to ensure the survival the US.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
There are worse avatars around...portraying communist sobs as heros and cool...
and even some having a message like islam will conquer the world by force of arms and the koran, etc....

Dj's avatar is good. President Reagan was a good man....despite what some people claim.


No he was not. His Presidency was a disaster and a failure, as were all of his policies! Do not try to push your revisionist crap on me please. I was alive and alert for all of it, and the effects. He was a lying, racist, homophobic fascist!!!!!

The depiction of Regan in Red ;as Che, Mao, Stalin, and Lenin are usually depicted, is a disgrace to the man who opposed communism (and I do not even like the man). It is also a disgrace to those of us who do have communist/Anarchist inclinations.




BTW the Russians and the Chinese have similar plans... Other countries like NK probably have nuclear contigency plans that are worse than ours.


Everyone has plans to destroy the planet, that's the problem. Everyone is soo afraid that someone else is going to Nuke them. Problem is America is the only nation evil enough to actually use not one, but two! On the same ISLAND none the less!!!

Lets not worry about those who MIGHT use nuclear weapons, and concern ourselves with the nations that HAVE!

[edit on 15-5-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 11:48 PM
link   
It’s really not that hard to believe. Bush was asked once what he thought history would have to say about him. His answer was it doesn’t matter we will all be dead.


How The US Is Nuking Its Own Troops
Snip~
Bush-Cheney have delivered upon 17 million tons of depleted uranium (DU) weapons, a "liberation" gift that will keep on giving. Depleted uranium is a component of toxic nuclear waste, usually stored at secure sites. Handlers need radiation protection gear.

Over a decade ago, war-makers decided to incorporate this lethal waste into much of the Pentagon's weaponry. Navy ships carrying Phalanx rapid fire guns are capable of firing thousands of DU rounds per minute.(1) Tomahawk missiles launched from U.S. ships and subs are DU-tipped.(2) The M1 Abrams tanks are armored with DU.(3) These and British Challenger II tanks are tightly packed with DU shells, which continually irradiate troops in or near them.(4) The A-10 "tank buster" aircraft fires DU shells at machines and people on the battlefield.(5)

DU munitions are classified by a United Nations resolution as illegal weapons of mass destruction. Their use breaches all international laws, treaties and conventions forbidding poisoned weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.

Bush Sr.'s Gulf War I was also a nuclear war. 320 tons of depleted uranium were used against Iraq in 1991.(10) A 1998 report by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances confirms that inhaling DU causes symptoms identical to those claimed by many sick vets with Gulf War Syndrome.(11) The Gulf War Veterans Association reports that at least 300,000 Gulf War I vets have now developed incapacitating illnesses.(12) To date, 209,000 vets have filed claims for disability benefits based on service-connected injuries and illnesses from combat in that war.(13)

Dr. Asaf Durakovic, a professor of nuclear medicine at Georgetown University, is a former army medical expert. He told nuclear scientists in Paris last year that tens of thousands of sick British and American soldiers are now dying from radiation they encountered during Gulf War I. He found that 62 percent of sick vets tested have uranium isotopes in their organs, bones, brains and urine.(14) Laboratories in Switzerland and Finland corroborated his findings.


1."DOD Launches Depleted Uranium Training," Linda Kozaryn, American Forces Press Service, 8-13-99

2."Nukes of the Gulf War,"John Shirley, Zess@aol.com. See this article in archives at www.gulfwarvets.com.

3. BBC News, "US To Use Depleted Uranium," March 18, 2003; U.S. General Accounting Office, Operation Desert Storm: "Early Performance Assessment of Bradley and Abrams," 1-2-92.

4."Nukes of the Gulf War," op. cit.

5. Ibid.

11."Depleted Uranium Symptoms Match US Report As Fears Spread," Peter Beaumont, The Observer (UK) 1-14-01, www.guardianlimited.co.uk.

12. "Gulf War Illnesses Affect 300,000 Vets," Ellen Tomson, Pioneer Press, www.pioneerplanet.com. See also American Gulf War Veterans Association at www.gulfwarvets.com.

13. "2 of Every 5 Gulf War Vets Are On Disability: 209,000 Make VA Claims," World Net Daily, 1-28-03, WorldNetDaily.com.

14. "Research on Sick Gulf Vets Revisited, "New York Times, 1-29-01; "Tests Show Gulf War Victims Have Uranium Poisoning," Jonathon Carr-Brown and Martin Meissonnier, The Sunday Times (UK) 9-3-02.




[edit on 16/5/2005 by Sauron]



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
It’s really not that hard to believe. Bush was asked once what he thought history would have to say about him. His answer was it doesn’t matter we will all be dead.


I have heard that before. When and where did he say that?

[edit on 15-5-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
I have heard that before. When and where did he say that?
[edit on 15-5-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]


I have been looking for it, I will find it eventually
I did




Mr Woodward said he asked Mr Bush how he thought history would rate him. Mr Bush's reply was: "We won't know. We will all be dead."



What concerned me was when Bob asked him how is history likely to judge your Iraq War. He answered, “ History, We won’t know. We will all be dead!” Does Bush and Ashcroft who is Bush’s councilor and adviser believe the ideas that the booklet described how Bush would lead us to the final victory over evil and the end of the world. That may explain his approach to global warming and the environment.. Why be concerned , the world will be gone anyway. It may be why he seems more predisposed to war rather than exercise the patience and wisdom it take to pursue peace.
www.bleich4art.com...





[edit on 16/5/2005 by Sauron]



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin Problem is America is the only nation evil enough to actually use not one, but two! ]


well they shouldve left us alone, atleast we didnt destroy almost their whole country like we did to germany with millions killed..

[edit on 16-5-2005 by namehere]



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin

No he was not. His Presidency was a disaster and a failure, as were all of his policies! Do not try to push your revisionist crap on me please. I was alive and alert for all of it, and the effects. He was a lying, racist, homophobic fascist!!!!!

The depiction of Regan in Red ;as Che, Mao, Stalin, and Lenin are usually depicted, is a disgrace to the man who opposed communism (and I do not even like the man). It is also a disgrace to those of us who do have communist/Anarchist inclinations.
............


ohh... i see you are another of those couch potato communists/anarchists...who have never experienced and seen what communism does to a country and it's people.... BTW, first time I heard of someone having both communist and anarchist inclinations....

Who shouldn't be trying to "push that revisionist crap" is yourself.. i have lived/experienced communism, and still have family who are suffering because of a communist doctrine....and there are millions like me who would not fall for that crap...


[edit on 16-5-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
ohh... i see you are another of those couch potato communists/anarchists...who have never experienced and seen what communism does to a country and it's people.... BTW, first time I heard of someone having both communist and anarchist inclinations....


I said "those"meaning some of us meaning; anarchist or comunist; which do share similar ideologies.

Couch potato my A@. I am involved in more than typing every other week on a computer. Yes I am not from a communist country. But I have been to and seen what it does. Unfortunately Those Governments do not stick to the tenets of their very ideology, similar to what the USA is doing now.



Who shouldn't be trying to "push that revisionist crap" is yourself.. i have lived/experienced communism, and still have family who are suffering because of the communist doctrine....and there are millions like me who would not fall for that crap...

Then you obviously do not know what Regan did to this country. This isn't the time nor place for me to fill you in.Depicting Reagan in Communist fashion, is just assenine! Trumping him as a hero is even worse.

[edit on 16-5-2005 by phoenixhasrisin]



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Yep, i knew it...another couch potato wannabe communist who knows nothing about communism....


Humm, we had an influx of Nazis not so long ago...now we are having an influx of communists and even insurgent/terrorist sympathizers in the forums this time around... and some people still claim communism is dead.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Hey Muaddib!

What's been up since you've defeated Baron Harkinin? The water thing is working out okay Atrades?




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join