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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin
True, the only thing that I do not understand is how most people in the USA are completely un-aware of their governments plans to strike first, thereby initiating the nuclear conflict. The people feel this is justified due to their mindless fear , and ignorance of other nations.


Um, that is not entirely accurate. Most people around the world are completely not aware of their governments' plans at all. The Russian people are not always aware of their government's nuclear strike plans. Same for the British, the French, the Chinese, as well as Israel, India and Pakistan.

It's not a mindless fear, it's just a contingency plan in case of an inevitable national security crisis. Every government in every country always have a contingency military plan in case of national security emergency or an invasion. Don't assume it's always the Americans'.




posted on May, 18 2005 @ 10:00 PM
link   


Iran and N Korea should fry if they don't disarm now.
Xenersys

I cannot decide which is worse; the actions you are describing, or your use of the word "fry". One hopes that breeding is not high on your list of priorities.



Whenever I ask people I know about what if there would be a nuclear war coming inevitably, I'm somewhat surprised and puzzled by their casual indifference to it before they could answer, "Yeah..." with a shrug.
the_oleneo

I have been reading about the specifics of electronic ELF freq's that keep people cow-like and docile. This machinery, though fantastic, must be included on any decent list entitled "Why Americans Ignore Nuclear War". Nuclear War simultaneously fill them with dread and holds no motivation to action for them. It is as if Americans (and other humans) are caught in the headlights of their own nuclear deaths. Been this way for the last few decades and people are still trying to fetishize every possible distraction they can find. Amazing.

It's been said that Americans do not control their government anymore. If we attempted first-strike on another nation, I'd say that this question could no longer be debated. If nuclear weapons are used without the people's consent, there will be a revolution. If the administrators of our government think they can pull a nuclear strike without delaration of war and due Congressional process from the American people, they will be replaced, if we're still around after that point.

Americans had to go to war to abolish slavery in their country (other nations like Japan, China, Britan did this without internal war) and so we can see that we are a obstinate bunch. If nuclear first strike was attempted by our leaders against Korea or Iran, all Americans would then essentially become slaves of the President and his cabinet. Once Americans felt like slaves themselves, I think they'd get off the couch, assuming the couch hasn't been vaporized by Total Nuclear War.



[edit on 18-5-2005 by smallpeeps]



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 02:41 AM
link   
SmallPeeps,


Originally posted by smallpeeps
It's been said that Americans do not control their government anymore. If we attempted first-strike on another nation, I'd say that this question could no longer be debated. If nuclear weapons are used without the people's consent, there will be a revolution. If the administrators of our government think they can pull a nuclear strike without delaration of war and due Congressional process from the American people, they will be replaced, if we're still around after that point.

Americans had to go to war to abolish slavery in their country (other nations like Japan, China, Britan did this without internal war) and so we can see that we are a obstinate bunch. If nuclear first strike was attempted by our leaders against Korea or Iran, all Americans would then essentially become slaves of the President and his cabinet. Once Americans felt like slaves themselves, I think they'd get off the couch, assuming the couch hasn't been vaporized by Total Nuclear War.



[edit on 18-5-2005 by smallpeeps]


Again it is you with the "We are all going to die in a nuclear fireball" post


What makes you think there is some conspiratorial reason that the vast bulk of the US act like cattle? Could it not simply be you have pretty good lives and cannot see why you should change that?

You are not the people you used to be 50 or 100 years ago. Then again most of the West is like that too.

Furthermore what makes you think a nuclear strike on Iran or Korea is likely?

Conventional munitions are far more accurate and in most cases more useful to the task at hand.

However, lets assume that Bush or a successor does use nukes in Iran or North Korea. What makes you think it will not be preceded by the sort of Fox News propaganda onslaught seen before Afghanistan and Iraq?

The recent election proves that most Americans will believe something if you put it on the TV enough times.

They are the proof to Hitler's statement about the Big Lie.

Cheers

BHR



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Anyone who thinks Bush wouldn't nuke anyone should think again...

The man is going to be one of the biggest warmongers that the human race has ever know.

God help us.


Red

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 04:08 AM
link   
The US will not launch any nuke attacks this year.



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Red,

Do you have any info to back this up or is it simply your opinion?

Cheers

BHR



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 04:38 AM
link   


The Bush administration has been hot to trot – not only when it comes to creating new generations of "mini"-nuclear weapons and resuming underground nuclear testing, but also on making the weapons already in our vast nuclear arsenal a more active part of our war-planning process.




Of course, our planning for such weaponry has a long and satanic history: The American military's initial Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) for the use of its nuclear weapons imagined us delivering over 3,200 nuclear weapons to 1,060 targets, including at least 130 cities which would then, if all went well, cease to exist. Official estimates of casualties ran to 285 million dead and 40 million injured (and this undoubtedly underestimated radiation effects).

Sci-fi-style Death Star planning of just this sort has never ended. Only this week, the Japan Times reported on a paper prepared by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff that calls for the possible preemptive use of nuclear weapons in regional or terrorist conflicts of various sorts:

'There are numerous nonstate organizations (terrorist, criminal) and about 30 nations with WMD programs, including many regional states,' the paper says in recommending that commanders in the Pacific and other theaters be given an option of preemptive strikes against 'rogue' states and terrorists and 'request presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons' under set conditions."




Britain likewise is redirecting its targeting. Its defense secretary has stated that even the modest step of declaring no-first-use of nuclear weapons "would be incompatible with our and NATO's doctrine of deterrence, nor would it further nuclear disarmament objectives." In other words, Britain may find it necessary to initiate a nuclear war to achieve nuclear disarmament.


source


IMO, the world must follow the indian model wherin india has declared "No first use of nuclear weapons"



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I've always ask this question:

What is the very best way to convince all the nations, including the United States, not to have nuclear weapons?

I know the answer well and you won't like it.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 04:26 AM
link   
Oleneo,

I am keen to hear your answer to your own question above.

Cheers

BHR



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 06:11 AM
link   


Originally posted by the_oleneo
What is the very best way to convince all the nations, including the United States, not to have nuclear weapons?


Is it an international revolution; which in turn puts in place the dictatorship of the proletariat?



[edit on 31-5-2005 by ghostsoldier]



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghostsoldier


Originally posted by the_oleneo
What is the very best way to convince all the nations, including the United States, not to have nuclear weapons?


Is it an international revolution; which in turn puts in place the dictatorship of the proletariat?



[edit on 31-5-2005 by ghostsoldier]


an international revolution eh? then we be having all kinds of new governments and same old governing and in us human beings we still be justifiying the keeping of nukes because they believe that or this persons governing system is a threat to their own.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Red,

Do you have any info to back this up or is it simply your opinion?

Cheers

BHR


Hey Bill, why should Red be held to a higher standard than you or dgtempe, etc.? You're all just spewing your opinions on this thread.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Ahh, beautiful. Post after post in this thread says "We would NEVER instigate a nuclear war! No worries!"

What if we did?

We are about to face a worldwide energy crisis, and America isn't the only nation that is powered by cheap fuel.

Don't be so sure that nuclear war won't break out over oil.

Zip



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_oleneo
I've always ask this question:

What is the very best way to convince all the nations, including the United States, not to have nuclear weapons?

I know the answer well and you won't like it.


Every Nation gets 1 Nuclear Weapon which can hit anywhere in the world. That way none of them can use it because the other will hit back.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Every Nation gets 1 Nuclear Weapon which can hit anywhere in the world. That way none of them can use it because the other will hit back.


No, no, no -- if this were the case, then one country would manipulate a bunch of countries to nuke one other country and then a bunch of other countries to nuke someone else until the manipulator country and its allies are the only countries left with nukes and all of the other countries shine that country's shoes.

Right? You musta been asleep in World Domination class...

Zip



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_oleneo
I've always ask this question:

What is the very best way to convince all the nations, including the United States, not to have nuclear weapons?

I know the answer well and you won't like it.


My answer: A nuclear holocaust.

There is a strong chance that a small percentage of humanity who will survive a nuclear exchange, unite all of mankind and swears "never again".



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   


Originally posted by the_oleneo
What is the very best way to convince all the nations, including the United States, not to have nuclear weapons?



Originally posted by ghostsoldier
Is it an international revolution; which in turn puts in place the dictatorship of the proletariat?




Originally posted by deltaboy
an international revolution eh? then we be having all kinds of new governments and same old governing and in us human beings we still be justifiying the keeping of nukes because they believe that or this persons governing system is a threat to their own.


I doubt it would turn out that way, if you are interested, I strongly suggest you research it all, because when you think about it, it just makes sense...

A dictatorship of the proletariat would establish proletarian democracy, which is really the only true form of democracy - voting once every four years isn't democracy - the 'average joe' coming together, and taking control for themselves (not some rich, upper-class elitist Aristocrats (which is the only kind of democracy an advanced capitalist country (such as the US) can have, until a TRUE socialist revolution.))

And I think that if an international referendum were to take place - the world would pretty much unanimously vote to destroy all the Weapons of Mass Destruction (Nuclear, Biologial and Chemcial)... Think about it, right now we have a tiny minority who decide what we (the people of the world want/need)... if we didn't have a small minority making all our decisions for us, this world would be a better place... Do you think the people of the world would vote to starve african kids? - Do you think the people of the world would vote to go to war? - Do you think the people of the world would vote to have their decisions made for them?

Of course not, and this is the way it always will be - until we, the people of the world, stand together to fight the corporate elite who decide whats good and bad for us, and we take the power back, they way a true democracy is supposed to work...

Once again, voting once every 4 years, is not democracy - there is an alternative - one only has to go out and look for it...

[edit on 31-5-2005 by ghostsoldier]



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 06:19 PM
link   
so who should lead the country ghost? each individual is the commander in chief?



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Russia is leaving no stone unturned in ensuring disarmament.

Read : Russia to reduce ICMB armoury to just 300 by 2010

[edit on 31-5-2005 by Stealth Spy]



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Centurion,


Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Red,

Do you have any info to back this up or is it simply your opinion?

Cheers

BHR


Hey Bill, why should Red be held to a higher standard than you or dgtempe, etc.? You're all just spewing your opinions on this thread.


If you want any back up info on anything I have posted all you have to do is ask. Just like I did with Red.

Cheers

BHR



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join