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.

 

WAR: U.S. Envisions Using Nukes on Terrorists

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:
la2

posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   
the planets fine, its the people who are incharge that are all mad!!




posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 09:59 AM
link   
What terrorists?

Probably the ones we do know exist. The ones who various nations have supported (financially, logistically, whatever) since the late 1970s. You know, the ones who initially were "good guys" when initially supported by the CIA, and then later turned around and bit us on the backside?

Those terrorists.

They exist.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   
The ones we created? Ahhh...i see.

Same difference.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   
WAR: U.S. Envisions Using Nukes on Terrorists

If this Plan was to be executed - and bombs would have a targeting system to hit "The Terrorist" - the White House would be a Big Hole.

[edit on 11/9/05 by Souljah]



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   
My point exactly.


By now i think WE ALL know what the powers that be are capable of.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   
I was under the impression that the usage of nuclear weapons is strictly forbidden under numerous treaties? Regardles, this document released by the pentagon expresses the confounded intellect of American think tanks who truely believe that terrorists with be tharted by the simply tacticaly advancment of Nukes upon thier 'location'; speaking of which, does anyone know what country exactly Al Queda works from? Exactly who would we nuke?

Luxifero



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   
That's the point, Lux *nodding*.

Al Qaeda have cells in the US, UK, Australia, most of Europe, Africa, Asia and quite honestly it would be easier asking which nations didn't have AQ representation.

If a US-based cell, with US citizens attached, were to set off another major attack - would we be nuking the US?

Can't see that happening.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luxifero
I was under the impression that the usage of nuclear weapons is strictly forbidden under numerous treaties?


Don't you know by now, the Bush regime does not stand by the treaties previous administrations have signed? A sure sign of how they view the world....with absolute disregard and an imperiousness that more than feeds the fire of anti-Americanisms, but actually helps create it. FOOLS!!!



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Wait, the terrorists are going to nuke themselves. I never understood Bush's logic, i'm sure he meant they will nuke arabs.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I honestly do not believe this was intended to use as a threat to terrorists. I think its a mind attack on your common Joe Shmo living a middle class life in ANY country in order to strike fear that the U.S. may actually use a nuclear weapon if a terrorist under our BROAD descriptions i found in their neighborhoods. Of course many people know better than to believe the U.S. government would actually have the cohones to do this. But the majority of your 9-5's with three kids and a mortgage who are fearful of most things do not know any better.

This announcement was intended to scare people into ratting out those they think may be committing, or plotting to commit crimes against the state America, regardless of what nation your in. This may be bad you could have peaceful dissenters beng accused of terrorist type crimes just because their neighbors fear the U.S. will drop a bomb on their neighborhood. Maybe we should educate others who believe this to not believe it so they dont start pointing fingers at the angry man across the street.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luxifero
I was under the impression that the usage of nuclear weapons is strictly forbidden under numerous treaties?


I do not think so. Testing is the subject of many treties, and the overall numbers of warheads that the US and Russia has is also subject to treaties, but thier actuall use is goverened by each individual government and of course MAD.

I just do not see them as an effective means against terrorists unless you are going to hit a biological weapons factory. Even then, its unlikely that that going to be located by itself in the middle of nowhere.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Yeah, to my knowledge there was never any treaty prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons. However, there was a "no-first use" policy that most nuclear countries had. The United States dropped this late last year I believe when they released their pre-emptive plans for nuking North Korea if they dont give up their own nukes.

Thats not to say the United States wouldnt of nuked a country that hadnt nuked America. Excluding Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the United States maintained a position where it would reply with nuclear weapons to ANY WMD attack on America. If a country used biological or chemical weapons against the United States they would of retaliated with their nuclear weapons. That was their policy.

Other countries still stand by their "no-first use" nuclear policy such as India, China and Russia.

[edit on 11/9/05 by subz]



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Excluding Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the United States maintained a position where it would reply with nuclear weapons to ANY WMD attack on America. If a country used biological or chemical weapons against the United States they would of retaliated with their nuclear weapons. That was their policy.


Not to condone the use of WMD's by anybody, but nobody ever seems to acknowledge, or they just don't know that Japan DID use WMD's way before the US in WWII. Maybe it just doesn't go along with peoples "the US is the sole bad guy in the world" mentality. Japan intentionally used biological and chemical weapons in the Phillipines, China, and a couple other countries. They used all the real nasty ones too. To this day there are still areas of those countries that are hazardous. They would not have hesitated one second to use them on the US mainland if they were able to. So Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not excluded.

I don't think even this administration, as stupid as they are, would use a powerful nuclear weapon first. I think this is being misread, it most likely means they will keep as an option the use of a small tactical nuke on a remote facility they believe is being used to manufacture bio or chem weapons to ensure the death of whatever organisms are being manipulated, but a city killer? No way. That would result in WWIII and all of Bush's rich buddies would have nowhere to spend all the money they take from us.

[edit on 12-9-2005 by 27jd]


apc

posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
... but a city killer? No way.


This is basically what I was pointing out in my initial post in this thread. If we used anything, it would most likely be a 1KT or lower yield warhead. Essentially a really powerful "Bunker Buster." Little to no fallout, gamma radiation, or damage to surrounding areas, while still providing intense heat and blast to a highly localized area.

Plus, I feel I should add, noone uses "city killers" anymore anyway. The USSR were the last ones to tote anything bigger than 5MT in thier arsenal, and those got dismantled a long time ago. No, what is sitting in the silos today are in the range of 50-500KT. Most are 180KT. The only reason we have so many is because of the population gradient of Russia. 80% of the civilian populus live in rural areas as opposed to cities, so it takes more nukes to get all of 'em.

To demonstrate what kind of destructive power a 180KT blast delivers, a 1MT by comparison will vaporize or completely destroy everything within about a half mile radius of ground zero. Within 1.5-3 miles, 80% of surface structures will be destroyed and 90% mortality rate. Within 3-5 miles, half the buildings will be damaged beyond repair, with around a 50% mortality rate. Beyond 5 miles, buildings will have their windows shattered, but most will still be standing. Anyone who was inside at the time of the detonation is probably ok, except for injuries from flying glass/debris. Anyone outside has gotten a very painful tan and will probably die of cancer.

So you can imagine how 180KT is not that bad at all. 15KT was dropped on Hiroshima, and ground zero still had indentifiable structure to it. 1KT or lower would be practically equivalent to a very very large conventional warhead.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Plus, I feel I should add, noone uses "city killers" anymore anyway. The USSR were the last ones to tote anything bigger than 5MT in thier arsenal, and those got dismantled a long time ago. No, what is sitting in the silos today are in the range of 50-500KT. Most are 180KT.


Well, perhaps that's not true:



George W. Bush might have kicked his alcohol and drug habits, but he still appears to have at least one serious addiction--to nuclear weapons.

Last year, Congress refused to fund the administration's ambitious proposal for new nuclear weapons, largely because both Republican and Democratic lawmakers agreed that the world would be a safer place with fewer—rather than more--nuclear explosives in existence.

But, undeterred by last year's rebuff, the Bush administration recently returned to Congress with a proposal for funding a new generation of "usable" nuclear weapons. These weapons are the so-called "bunker busters." Despite the rather benign name, the "bunker buster" is an exceptionally devastating weapon, with an explosive power of from several hundred kilotons to one megaton (i.e. a thousand kilotons). To put this in perspective, it should be recalled that the nuclear weapons that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki had explosive yields of from 14 to 21 kilotons. "These weapons will bust more than a bunker," remarked U.S. Senator Jack Reed. "The area of destruction will encompass an area the size of a city. They are really city breakers."
www.wagingpeace.org...




The U.S. has now retired all of its multimegaton weapons. Disassembly of the last type removed from service, the B53, may be completed in 2006. Russia probably maintains a small number ICBMs in high-yield single warhead versions. The People's Republic of China has one type of ICBM armed with high-yield warheads. Operational multimegaton weapons in 2005 thus include:

Russia's R-36M2 Voyevoda (SS-18 Mod 6) with a 20 mt warhead (possibly 5 deployed). (The UR-100N version (SS-19 Mod 2) with a 5 mt warhead may no longer be deployed.)
PRC's DF-5A (CSS-4) with a 5 mt warhead (about 24 deployed).

There is still considerable uncertainty on some of the issues discussed here. While much information on U.S. nuclear warhead history is available, information is still scanty on some high-yield nuclear weapons. Information now available on the former Soviet/current Russian arsenal is limited regarding its largest weapons, and considerable inconsistencies in available information remain.

U.S.

Following removal of the B53 from service, the highest yield U.S. weapon is the variable yield B83, with a maximum yield of 1.2 mt.[53]

Russia

Another follow-on, the R-36M2 Voyevoda ("commander" in English), was flight tested from March 1986 to September 1989. The MIRVed variant (SS-18 Mod 5), with ten 15F173 warheads, became operational in December 1988. A single-warhead version (SS-18 Mod 6), with the 15F175 warhead providing a 20-mt yield, was deployed in small numbers begining in August 1990.[72, 73] The single-warhead R-36M2 is the highest yield nuclear weapon currently deployed by any nation.

China

The People's Republic of China has deployed a warhead estimated at 5 megatons on the Dong Feng 5 ICBM (U.S. designation CSS-4). The DF-5 can carry a 3,000-kg warhead to a range of 12,000, while the improved Dong Feng 5A can carry 3,200 kg to a range of 13,000 km.[78] The warhead is probably a high yield version of the design(s) used in the PRC's thermonuclear tests of 1968, 1970, and 1976 (given the limited number of Chinese nuclear tests, an independent warhead design is unlikely).[76]

Estimated deployments of DF-5s are highly uncertain. The first two DF-5 missiles were deployed in silos in 1981,[78] and the force remained at 2 through at least 1984.[79] Estimated numbers deployed were 18 in June 2000, 20 in 2003,[76] and 24 in 2005, although reports vary. From about 1990 to 2000, deployed DF-5s were replaced with improved DF-5As.[75, 77] Reportedly the DF-5 force is currently organized into three missile brigades. The 803rd brigade in Hunan province was established in 1984 and converted to DF-5A missiles by the mid-1990s. The 804th brigade in western Henan province was established in the late 1980s, converted to DF-5A missiles by 2000, and may include missiles based in tunnels. The 818th brigade in Hunan province was established in 1996 and was likely initially equipped with DF-5A missiles.[77]

www.johnstonsarchive.net...

article from June 19 2005


While the U.S. government may have us believe most of the multi-megaton weapons are not in service, we should all know that what they have us believe and what is most likely the truth are two completely different things. City killers are alive and well, unfortunately.







[edit on 13-9-2005 by 27jd]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   
You know what I find strange? As someone mentioned before in other words: When the U.S. government uses nukes, they're called nukes. When someone else uses them, they're called "weapons of mass distruction".

I mean...
. They're all WMD's!!


apc

posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 10:34 PM
link   
27jd: My apologies. I'm a Cold War junkie. I'm hard to sway into thinking of China as a "power" to be considered.

>note:

A single-warhead version (SS-18 Mod 6), with the 15F175 warhead providing a 20-mt yield, was deployed in small numbers begining in August 1990.[72, 73] The single-warhead R-36M2 is the highest yield nuclear weapon currently deployed by any nation.

This is not a deployment I would take too seriously. It was more of a "We may have just imploded, but we've still got somethin between our legs" gesture.
A warhead of this size would never be used in modern day combat. There's no need. The only reason high yield warheads even existed were because of the inaccuracy of the delivery systems... If you can't take out a particular federal building in a city, just take out the whole city.

The more accurate, lower yield,



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBandit795
You know what I find strange? As someone mentioned before in other words: When the U.S. government uses nukes, they're called nukes. When someone else uses them, they're called "weapons of mass distruction".

I mean...
. They're all WMD's!!


Symantics
Just like a dictator in favor is a "Strongman"



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
This is not a deployment I would take too seriously. It was more of a "We may have just imploded, but we've still got somethin between our legs" gesture.


I would still feel more comfortable without weapons of that size existing at all. But I still believe that the U.S. won't be upstaged, and our government either still has high yield nuclear weapons they are not making us aware of, or more likely in my opinion, they have something new. As obvious as it is to all of us that China is a rising power, and Russia has been warming up to China, it's just as obvious to those who call the shots here. It seems like our goverment isn't in the least bit concerned, I find that strange. I think while they have us all focused an being afraid of a bunch of cavemen, and pretty much writing them a blank check for military spending without question in the name of homeland security, they are developing new, more powerful WMD's. And I don't think they're gonna be aimed at any caves. The 1KT bunker busters are intended to penetrate command centers and shelters underground in the mountains. And I suspect that's not all our government has up it's sleeves. I think the cold war rages on, they just don't want us to know.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBandit795
You know what I find strange? As someone mentioned before in other words: When the U.S. government uses nukes, they're called nukes. When someone else uses them, they're called "weapons of mass distruction".

I mean...
. They're all WMD's!!


WMD are not confined just to nukes. WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) include biological and chemical weapons. When someone mentions nukes, they are talking about nuclear devices, not the other wmd.




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join