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.

 

Nuclear War for 2006? No Way in Hell!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Do you honestly thing America would let a nuclear war happen? I don't think so. Even if it WAS in the bible codes, America have a lot of power in this world, and no country would think twice about bombing a U.S city. Look what happened after 9/11, and that was just two buildings!

This is my first ever post on ATS

*Don't use all caps please*

[edit on 29-12-2005 by dbates]




posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Congrats on your first post



And you're absolutely right. No country would nuke us unless they're prepared for every man, woman, and child in their country to be harmed or killed.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Welcome. What a good first post.

Who exactly are we trusting not to push this "red button", though? How many egos, emotions, and ill intent are attached to this power? I certainly do not trust "good judgement" to come from Capitol Hill when it really comes down to it.

We may be living in a world when a Nukefest seems more distant than ever, but it doesn't mean we as Americans have the right to stand behind the strength of our country and taunt those who share the same power.

Hiding behind a bully is hiding all the same.

(By the way, I am American, and I do love this country. I am simply making a point.)



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Why do you think that only a country would use nukes against the US or any other nation? Yes there are a number of fanatical nations out there which would not think twice about using nukes or any other WMD against any perceived enemy.
I would be more worried of a radical extremeist group using a WMD than I would a goverment. Many of these extremeists look upon the destruction of their enemies to be an honorable thing for which they will be rewarded. If some nut job out there thinks that he will go to his version of heaven, get 7 virgins, and all he has to do is trigger a nuke in oh... maybe NY, or LA or London, or even Jerusalem, do you think that he would think twice before pushing the button?
I think not



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Because I personally believe no terrorist group can get their hands on a nuclear device.

I have mixed feelings regarding the United States, They are the only super-power on this earth but they seem to like playing dangrous games with other countries.

I'm more worried about USA v Russia conflict at the moment



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Why would you consider Russia the main source of such a threat? There have been no real animosity between the US and Russia for quite a while now.
As for the terrorists getting a hold of a nuke or a WMD...

Nuke Countdown
there are enough nuclear scientists out there that can be used to gather the information / materials needed to build a nuke bomb.
recent news articles that link pakistani scientists to iraq's target of getting it's own nuclear arsenal demonstrates just how easy and available such knowledge is. I would not dismmiss the radicals any time soon.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Because America and Russia have the most nuclear weapons between them? And you know how unstable Russia acutally is at this point in time...

Also, what is worse? A terrorist faction getting their hands on a single 500K nuclear bomb, or a nation unleasing 300 of their 10megaton bombs?



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Wekk if there is an attack on a US city Iran is going first :




A number of political observers and activists today sounded “a red alert” after allegations surfaced this week that Vice President Dick Cheney has ordered Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to make contingency plans for a nuclear strike against Iran in the aftermath of another “9-11 type attack” on the United States.





Cheney’s orders first surfaced in an article by Philip Geraldi in the Aug 1, 2005, issue of American Conservative. Geraldi was unavailable for comment, but excerpts of the article went on to say:


ETC...



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   
neither.
if either scenario occured, the response would be the unleashing of everything in the arsenal. this means that there would not be just one target but multiple. thus would start the domino effect.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   
I found this gem of an article:


In May a conference of the 188 signatory nations to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will be held in New York City to put a spotlight on this problem. A huge march is planned for May 1. Advocates of nonproliferation will once again try to draw attention to the immorality and illegality of such weapons. But will the eight nations that possess nuclear weapons-the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel-actually take steps toward eliminating their arsenals?

The prognosis is not good. The preparatory meetings for the May conference ended in failure, with nonnuclear nations objecting to the intransigence of the nuclear-weapons states, noting how a world of nuclear haves and have-nots is becoming a permanent feature of the global landscape. The United States insists that the problem is not with those who possess nuclear weapons, but with states, such as Iran and other nations, trying to acquire them. To which Brazil responded: “One cannot worship at the altar of nuclear weapons and raise heresy charges against those who want to join the sect.” Faced with this stalemate, the NPT is eroding, and an expansion of the number of states with nuclear weapons, a fear which produced the NPT in 1970, is looming once more.
...


Should we fear the countries without, or with, the nuclear technology?

An even better point, from the same article:


...the elimination of such weapons will not be possible without a new architecture of security based on an adequate verification system.
...


Isn't that one of the greatest paradoxes? "In order to have peace, one must be prepared for war."



...
In 1995, on its twenty-fifth anniversary, the NPT (virtually every country in the world except India, Pakistan, and Israel has signed the treaty) was indefinitely extended. In agreeing to that extension, the nuclear powers made three promises: a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would be achieved; negotiations to ban the production of fissile material would be concluded; “systematic and progressive efforts globally” to eliminate nuclear weapons would be made. None of these promises has been kept.
...


Isn't that interesting? Admist all of the handshakes, we are all still holding that trigger. As far as I know, the Test Ban Treaty has been signed, but everyone is leery of letting go of such ultimate power.

And we are simply following Russia:


...
On November 17, 2004, President Vladimir Putin of Russia confirmed that his country is “carrying out research and missile tests of state-of-the-art nuclear missile systems” and that Russia would “continue to build up firmly and insistently our armed forces, including the nuclear component.” The United Kingdom, France, and China are all busy modernizing their nuclear arsenals. Similarly, NATO adheres to its stated policies that such weapons are “essential.”
...


So are we as bad as they are? Why don't we be the bigger country and relinquish our weapons first as a sign of good faith?

And the technology is available, as said earlier:


...
The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that at least forty countries have the capability to produce nuclear weapons, and criticizes the failure of export control systems to prevent an extensive illicit market in nuclear items
...


I know I am not at all comfortable having this power laying around. Like I said, all it takes is one bad day, or lack of judgement.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Very good point, after all, the main American Nuclear ICBM is "The PeaceKeeper"

Here's a good question, What if Nuclear weapons were never invented? How do you think the Cold War would of gone then?

Thank yooooou

[edit on 29-12-2005 by twisted_fate]



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Think of this scenario. What if Israel decides to drop a bomb on Iran's nuclear development center to prevent them from stockpiling nuclear weapons? This isn't a fairy tale what if. Remember that Israel did this exact thing to Iraq back in the early 80's.

Iran would of course retaliate, and to do so it would need to cross over Iraq where we have over 150,000 troops hanging out. We would be literally stuck in the middle of a war between Israel and Iran. We know that Israel has nuclear weapons, and Iran probably has a couple of their own. Israel is likely to ramp up the amount of force quickly due to the small size of their nation. The chance of a nuclear exchange happening is very likely. Again there we are in the middle and Iran might decide to neutralize the US presence in the area with a nuclear weapon.

Presto! You have your nuclear war. While we don't like this scenario, its actually in Israel's best interest to do this very thing. They have the United States forces in Iraq as a buffer, and Iran's current nuclear stockpile is limited. If they wait then Iran could build up a stockpile that would wipe out Israel for sure. It's no secret that Iran backs Hezbollah (Iran's proxy in Lebanon), Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. If they are allowed to obtian nuclear status they could possibly slip one in through that route. Israel won't stand for this.


The whole place is a powder keg that only needs one spark to set it off and we have several Bible passages that indicate that this will indeed happen.

Ezekiel 38


The word of the Lord came to me; Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal; prophesy against him and say: 'This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against you, O Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal. I will turn you around, put hooks in your jaws and bring you out with your whole army - your horsemen fully armed, and a great horde with large and small shields, all of them brandishing their swords. Persia, Cush and Put will be with them,


While there may be some debate on who Gog and Magog is, the Persia reference is quite clear. Iran was called Persia up until 1935 when they changed it to Iran.

Eventually this war will happen and I'm sure you're thinking "Isn't this going to happen during the Great Tribulation?" Read the next chapter (Ezekiel 39) and you'll see that Israel burns their enemies weapons for 7 years after they(not Israel) are defeated. Doesn't that time-frame sound famaliar? Now where have I heard this period of 7 years before? O! Now I remember!

Daniel 9:27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one seven.(7 years) In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering.

Of course its' speculation to assume that this has to happen at the beginning of the tribulation, but it's not a bad theory.

[edit on 29-12-2005 by dbates]



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   
dbates,
you are a bit close to the truth on that score. although with the latest news reports that al-queda is now claiming responsibility for firing rockets into Israel from somewhere in Lebanon. It is entirely plusible that al-queda is responsible as it would be in line with the ealier reports of the al-queda's agenda that was all over the news a few weeks ago.
Posting claims Al-Qaida in Iraq fired at Israel



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   
We may find out this year.

Isreali and American intelligence agencies state that Iran will have some level of nuclear capability between March 1st and June 30th, 2006.

Wrong or right doest matter. Regardless, those two governments will make plans accordingly.

Using the Cuban Missle Crisis as an example of US policy, Iran has 0% of maintaining any level of nuclear capability. Is Iran in its right to have nukes? No matter. What matters is that the theater in the middle east is about to open a new screen.

Will the US, Isreal or both attack Iran this year? Im 99% certain of it.

Its only a matter of how Iran will respond. When the US bombed Tripoli in 1985, the line of death was simply erased from the sea. Will Iran take their licks and simply endure it the way Saddam did after 1991? In hopes of staying in power?

Or will they attempt to fight back and let their soldiers get slaughtered like lamb.

With the support of the Soviet Union and the backdoor support of the US a la Iran-Contra, and with a larger country and a larger population, Iran still couldnt beat Iraq in 10 years of combat.

In 1991, Iraqi soldiers surrendered to unarmed cameramen from Europe. They surrendered to US mariens and soldiers in masses never before seen in human history, some of them going so far as to kiss and dust the boots of their captures.

We didnt see such self-disgracing tactics in 2003 but the US still carved the remains of the Iraqi military like a halloween pumpkin.

Excusing terrorist attacks, the former Iraqi government and military are a thing of the past.

So what is Iran capable of?

Still, Iran wont be the cakewalk Iraq was in 1991 or 2003. And Iran would likely see to it that their middle eastern nation doesnt suffer alone.

So I will make two guesses (not predictions) for 2006;

1. Iran will be attacked by the United States of America
2. The US will experience an act of terror on its soil that will surpass 911.

I hope my entire post is wrong in full. For the sake of America, Iran, and the entire world.

My opinion. Differing responses are welcome and respected.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Even if a war dose errupt there is no way they can fight,think about it

ISREAL|USA|IRAN

how is iran supposed to just willy nilly past iraq fly over?,well id say some American fighters would intercept them before they even see jewish soil and for nuking iraq well that might work but Iran still wouldnt be able to get rid of all forces with there limted if any nuclear aresnel



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   
It's no secret that Iran backs Hezbollah (Iran's proxy in Lebanon), Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. If they are allowed to obtian nuclear status they could possibly slip one in through that route. (Didn't I say this before)



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rouschkateer
Should we fear the countries without, or with, the nuclear technology?

Well with the "withs" we know where they stand. We know Russia and China will not just nukes just to piss someone off. They'll only use it if used upon them. The governments are also pretty much stable.

With the "withouts" like NK and Iran, there's always uncertaintly.



So are we as bad as they are? Why don't we be the bigger country and relinquish our weapons first as a sign of good faith?

lol, sign of good faith?
In theory maybe, but not reality.
1. If say Russia decided to get rid of their weapons do you think we'd follow suit? Don't think so. So why would they do it if we got rid of our weapons?
2. Nuke are the ultimate deterant. It'd be utterly stupid to come against us with nuke when we have nukes to retaliate with. If we don't have nukes, then what's stopping them?



Think of this scenario. What if Israel decides to drop a bomb on Iran's nuclear development center to prevent them from stockpiling nuclear weapons? This isn't a fairy tale what if. Remember that Israel did this exact thing to Iraq back in the early 80's.

Iran would of course retaliate, and to do so it would need to cross over Iraq where we have over 150,000 troops hanging out. We would be literally stuck in the middle of a war between Israel and Iran. We know that Israel has nuclear weapons, and Iran probably has a couple of their own. Israel is likely to ramp up the amount of force quickly due to the small size of their nation. The chance of a nuclear exchange happening is very likely. Again there we are in the middle and Iran might decide to neutralize the US presence in the area with a nuclear weapon.

Presto! You have your nuclear war. While we don't like this scenario, its actually in Israel's best interest to do this very thing. They have the United States forces in Iraq as a buffer, and Iran's current nuclear stockpile is limited. If they wait then Iran could build up a stockpile that would wipe out Israel for sure.

Don't think so dbates...
Like you said, Isreal did it before against Iraq.
What happened then? Why would this time be different?

Also, Iran and Iraq...eh....they don't necessarily see eye to eye. Not sure they'd be so open to allow the Iranian army to prance through their lands. I'm positive they'd be absolutely pissed if they nuked anywhere in Iraq, even if it's against Americans. So then you'd have Isreal, Iraq, and the US (and their allies) against Iran. And since Iran used a nuke...the gloves are off. Iran wouldn't stand a chance in that case and I'm pretty sure they know it.


[edit on 29-12-2005 by ThatsJustWeird]



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
lol, sign of good faith?
In theory maybe, but not reality.


Oops..sorry...was being naive again?



1. If say Russia decided to get rid of their weapons do you think we'd follow suit? Don't think so. So why would they do it if we got rid of our weapons?


Oh of course we wouldn't. And of course they wouldn't. It's a catch-22.


2. Nuke are the ultimate deterant. It'd be utterly stupid to come against us with nuke when we have nukes to retaliate with. If we don't have nukes, then what's stopping them?


Good intentions?



[edit on 29-12-2005 by Rouschkateer]



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Also, Iran and Iraq...eh....they don't necessarily see eye to eye. Not sure they'd be so open to allow the Iranian army to prance through their lands.


I should have quoted one more verse from Ezekiel 38, specifically verse 6.


also Gomer with all its troops, and Beth Togarmah from the far north with all its troops


I think it's accepted by most Biblical scholars (Not me I'm not a scholar) that Togarmah is what we now call Turkey. If you get Turkey involved in the mix then Iran could bypass the whole of Iraq. Turkey is an Islamic state so It's not a stretch to say that they would help out Iran. The route they would then take goes through Syria. A very interesting side-note is the prophecy that Isaiah makes in Isaiah 17:1""See, Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins. ". If they take the Syrian route then this would be a likely outcome. This chapter also mentions that many of the people in Israel will be killed which would sound reasonable in a war between Israel and Iran and Syria.

external image


[edit on 29-12-2005 by dbates]



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   


think it's accepted by most Biblical scholars (Not me I'm not a scholar) that Togarmah is what we now call Turkey. If you get Turkey involved in the mix then Iran could bypass the whole of Iraq. Turkey is an Islamic state so It's not a stretch to say that they would help out Iran. The route they would then take goes through Syria. A very interesting side-note is the prophecy that Isaiah makes in Isaiah 17:1""See, Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins. ". If they take the Syrian route then this would be a likely outcome. This chapter also mentions that many of the people in Israel will be killed which would sound reasonable in a war between Israel and Iran and Syria.


I very much doubt that Turkey even though an islamic state would allow Iran to pass its boders as probably by the time this happens Turkey will most lilkey be an EU state and will not risk its EU mebership on such a gamble to Iran bypass them



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join