It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bush Planning to use Nuke on Iran

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 06:22 AM
Do we expect a sane resolution? This man is dangerous to an excrutiating fault.

Would you be surprised?

We're just waiting on Cheney's orders.

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 06:30 AM
true. and im not surprised i have seen lots of evidence about this subject and to me i look at him as just another money hungry dictator no better then hitler. but thats just my opinion.

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 06:37 AM

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Why would riot over nuking Iran? You're assuming people will start caring about the ethics of war all of a sudden? People's butts never got off the couch for a war based on fraud, why should they for attacking Iran with limited yield nukes. I have yet to see any counter demonstrations for 100's of thousands of illegals marching and that hits closer to home.

Please remember that the Iraq war was somewhat different. At the time we were still grieving over our losses of 9-11 and anxious for answers and justice to be delivered to the perpetrators of it. Here we had so many people that we were supposed to be able to trust, telling us that Iraq was directly involved and that if not dealt with, that they were a threat to us with weapons of mass destruction capable of reaching our soil. People ate it up. As our famous prez said in one of his more famous speeches 'Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again'. I don't think Americans will be suckers a second time around and you can see already that many are not in support of these actions and have not been for a while.


posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 06:48 AM
G'day all,
Here are a couple of links in regard to this subject that many of you may find interesting. Some one previously mentioned that Americans didnt turn out in force to protest the Iraqi war; well one reason for this is that most americans knew that Iraq didn't pose a threat to them directly on US soil and so didnt get bothered by it.


If the US used nukes pre-emptively without telling the American public of their intentions, they would not only be pissed off for not being told about it but also of the real possibility that americans might become real targets on their own soil, if, and that's a big IF, Iran did have nukes and let some off, not only that but you have RUSSIA and CHINA with long range nukes who might get so pee'd off with America's unilateral bully boy tactics that they would have had enough and could send a few nukes heading Americas way to put them back in their place.

The US public doesn't want to become a war casualty, therefore they will take drastic action to oppose the governments dictatorial attitude, and if that means marching on to Washington and throwing Bush out with their own hands (just like Caocescu in Romania), then that wouldnt surprise me.

The US government is NOT governing for the people, they are governing for their own interests - they are a small band of dodgy death merchants profiteering on war on the backs of the american tax-payer, and the average american is either too dumb or lazy to go out and voice their opposition via protests.

Im too depressed about the whole scenario, everyones post goes roughly according to the same template on this issue, with minor differences in personal opinion, but regardless on the intricasies and particulars of it all, we here at ATS are all smart enough to understand and read the bigger picture of where this planet is going. It will very very soon become a place where you fend for yourself, to the best of your ability, ask no questions, take no chances, the law of the gun shall rule and you do what you must to protect and provide for your families.



[Mod edit - link fix.]

[edit on 9/4/2006 by Umbrax]

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 06:51 AM
i dont think bush would nuke iraq . his money (oil) is there.

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 07:43 AM
OK. Many of us already think Bush is either crazy or on some 'mission' that has nothing to do with running this country or upholding his responsibilities as president. Lots of people are joining us every day and many were staunch Bush supporters lot that long ago.

Let's suppose Bush does use tactical nukes on Iran. What then? Will that be enough for us (the citizenry of the US) to do something about it?

Since the year 2000 we have suffered 9/11, we have watched as our 'government' criminally abandoned the residents of the gulf cost post-Katrina, our economy has been gutted, energy costs have soared in direct proportion to the energy companies' profits, thousands have been killed and wounded in two wars, our constitutional rights have been significantly eroded, Bush has broken the law (wiretapping) and flipped us all off over it, the USA has become pariahs throughout the world...

When will it be enough? We all must realize that if we were to use tactical nukes in Iran that will give Iran the moral authority to villify us --- permanently. That will very likely be the beginning of WWIII. The act itself would be the ultimate hypocrisy.

[edit on 9-4-2006 by jtma508]

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 07:45 AM

Originally posted by Omega85
i dont think bush would nuke iraq . his money (oil) is there.

Iran, not Iraq.

If this administration uses a nuke to stop Iran from getting nukes they will have done the very thing that Iran said they need nukes for. protection from warring nuclear nations. The administration is wicked, evil, moronic, whatever but they cannot be this stupid. No other nation will stand beside us if we do this. An unprovoked nuclear attack is not a precision strike to sort out the mess. This is an overly aggressive assault and absolutely unwarranted.

I do think we will see a mushroom cloud in Iran but I have this feeling it will be a result of the UN sanctioned strikes. Iran, in a last ditch effort to get sympathy and world backing, will unleash a nuke on their own soil and blame the US, Israel, the UN or all three.

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Omega85
I think that all that stuff about arabs with there boxcutters is just scapegoating propaganda.i think that he just blamed it on them as an excuse to go to war and make more money.I have read about the supposed terrorists and one of the articals say one of the major terrorists leaders who was supposedly on the plane that crashed into the wtc spoke to his father the day after it happens. also the authorities claim to have found a passport belonging to one of them in the wreackage. now explain to me how a building could be turned to rubble and have smouldering remains on the ground while a complete and untarnished passport turns up amidst it all?? i mean did he throw it out of the plane before he crashed into it?? i think not.

let me know what u think about my opinion i would really appreciate it


ps. I am from Australia so i would be interested to know about the goings on about the subject in the us so let me know what u think .
Many thanks

I think there is just a few too many unanswered questions about it that run through my mind to form a judgement as to what really did go down. based on what I do know, well, if it wasn't a terrorist attack, or even if it was, I don't think the leaders of this country have the interests of it's citizens on the top of it's lists of important details anymore. they are using it to their own benefit.

[edit on 9-4-2006 by dawnstar]

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 10:18 AM
why go through all this expense to get rid of one guy.

take out the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
regime change , i think Bush should think wisely dont use nukes use logic for a change. if this leader in iran is a madman then get rid of him , its a lot easier to remove one guy than stir a hornets nest in the middle east.
im sure the cia has operatives that can take him out anytime they choose.

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 10:26 AM
I don't think the usa will use these old fashioned nuclear weapons. if using nuclear weapons they will use something more exotic like nuclear beam technology and, fusion based desintergration beams ect. the usa has technology far superior to nuclear bombs. developed because the ban on nuclear bombs and testing of them they have switched to a new approch and they will be used against Iran , and that is for the better of the world and humankind.

and a few post ago somebody wrote that bush would not be so stupid to use nuclear bombs because the streets around the globe will be full of muslims rioting and pillaging ect.

well like to say to that this the japanese around the globe did they do that ?? no they surrendered because they knew they would be attacked again.
if the middle east knows the effects of nuclear weapons they would not try to get them because we don't see the effects of nuclear weapons no more the latest wartime used nukes are ages ago and the effect is gone .
If not use ones in a decade the effect of nuclear bombs as a deterrend wil be gone and so they are not affraid of these weapons because they don't know the effects they didn't see the live images out of japan .
and people think they will not use it so we can do everything.

if used I am for the use of nuclear weapons but only the controlled ones and not the uncontrolled nuclear explosions of a nuclear bomb. but a guided and controlled explosion with the force of a fusion bomb only on the effects on a small area of terrain with no fallout and with only that part of terrain damaged .

uncontrolled explosin will lead to a destruction area of several tens km / miles and with a controlled nuclear weapon we can speak of an area of several hundreds meters to 10 km. and that is fine by me especially in a dessert like area as iran .

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 10:42 AM
I posted this in another thread, but I will post it here too.

This does not surprise me at all. What would have been surprising is if he didnt want to nuke them.

I think the whole thing is a conspiracy. Think about it. Iran "hid" their nuclear capabilities for 18 some years, and now they came out of the closet, right before actaully being able to get any nuclear weapons, and say basically, "We want to wipe Israel of the face of the earth & we are not creating nuclear weapons...though we almost can"

Now with that statement people say, "See they want to wipe Israel of the face of the earth, so they are lying that they will not create nuclear weapons."

The conspiracy is this. If they wanted to truly wipe Israel off the face of the earth, why on earth would you keep a program secret for 18 years, then tell everyone just in time for them to stop you? Why make it secret to begin with? Plain stupid, not consistent.

What is truly going on? Is it Bushs plan to make an America in Iraq & Iran? Is it some Illumanati scandal to make World War III and bring about the story they want? Who knows.

But again, think.
- 18 year old "secret" nuclear program
- right before they can actually do something (if they really wanted to), they break the years of secrecy...which of course is going to prompt reaction from certain nations to stop them. (So if they really wanted to do something, this is not a logical step on their part)

The that people are sheep and the governments are all in it together doing whatever.

Lets stop destroying one another & love.

Gods peace


posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 10:42 AM

Originally posted by MarkLuitzenand a few post ago somebody wrote that bush would not be so stupid to use nuclear bombs because the streets around the globe will be full of muslims rioting and pillaging ect.

well like to say to that this the japanese around the globe did they do that ?? no they surrendered because they knew they would be attacked again.

far more muslims around the globe than japanese and there's a big difference. we were at war with japan. this would be an act of war, declaring war on iran AND muslims around the globe. Don't say we're at war with them now because we aren't.

a nuke as a first strike will give Iran exactly what it wants. Allies that were staying on the sidelines.

Bad move.

very bad move

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 10:47 AM
If there was a "terrorist" attack on US soil (or US interests abroad) which involved a nuke or "dirty" bomb then Bush and Co would have the excuse they need to use tactical nukes on Iran - and they would more than likely have public support over it as well. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people in the US won't see what's going on and will call for somebody (Iran) to take the blame big style. A surgical strike on underground facilities with low-yield nukes would probably be viewed as a good move if Islamic extremists have just wiped out thousands of civilians with WMD. Hell, the US might even come out of it looking like good guys...

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 11:32 AM

Originally posted by bretmania
why go through all this expense to get rid of one guy.

Its called a Luciferian move. Its evil. He not only wants to take out Irans so-called weapons, he wants to take out humanity.

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 12:15 PM
Everyone has failed to point out the following fact- Iran is a nation that is well known to be a nuclear weaponless nation. They are apparantly only striving to acquire nukes. I mean, they probably are trying to get them, of course. There desire a power in the energy rich area of the world and of course America won't let that happen. Here is the point I'm getting to- North Korea. North Korea is much closer to America and the whole world including America and North Korea has said at one time or another they have more nukes than you can count with one hand yet nothing has been done about them. God blessed North Korea to be oil dry in this respect.

My final message to the people in denial, this world has always been in a state of an RTS game. Think Starcraft.... I know that sounds lame, but sometimes one must be given a painting to see how the artist thinks. So since you are not in charge of America, play the painting in the form of Starcraft to see how it is to think in a bordered, segregated, anti-eachother world. You will see where the resources are... It's so simple

We must find and utilize a new, cheap, clean energy resource for peace among world governments.
As for freedom in oppressive regimes, that shall- and in my view will- come in time through citizens uprising.


[edit on 9-4-2006 by chibidai_rrr]

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 02:15 PM
I'd like to back up a moment and respond to something of a missconseption I've seen here and at large:

Originally posted by Omega85
i dont think bush would nuke iraq . his money (oil) is there.

Aside from this being about Iran, people have funny ideas about what nukes are. This plan isn't to glass the entire nation. It's about using a fairly low-yeald weapon to make damned sure that specific hardened targets are destroyed. Utterly.

Most likely what the plan involves is using Tomahawk's (or newer model "small" crusie missiles) with nuclear warheads.

Yes, they're talking about a perty big bang, but it would be much smaller (and cleaner) than Fatman. There would be no threat to The Prize.
Just more dead people.

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 02:58 PM
The recent press releases of the nuke Iran option is yet another public readying phase. The shock effect of such an action has now being minimalized. CONPLAN 8022-02 already spelled out a pre-emptive nuclear option, but few took notice.

Not Just A Last Resort?
A Global Strike Plan, With a Nuclear Option

CONPLAN 8022-02 was completed in November 2003, putting in place for the first time a preemptive and offensive strike capability against Iran and North Korea. In January 2004, Ellis certified Stratcom's readiness for global strike to the defense secretary and the president.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

The Zero-Sum Game
Why the Bush administration's policy of 'preventative' engagement could make nuclear warfare a reality

But President Bush and his neoconservative advisers are the first leaders to publicly favor preventive use of nuclear weapons against perceived threats to American business interests. And they have reconfigured the Pentagon's war plans to that end. According to the nonpartisan Arms Control Association, based in Washington, D.C., Bush is ready to preventively deploy strategic and tactical nuclear weapons against all enemies (including stateless terrorists). The Pentagon's CONPLAN 8022-22 does not differentiate between the battlefield use of conventional and nuclear weapons, except as to their effectiveness in destroying targets.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Some are speculating a covert ops group will launch a missile with a biological or chemical warhead from the Iranian border region at Israel or another US ally, then everyone will happily jump on the nuke Iran bandwagon. The black operatives could also detonate a dirty nuke on a western nation to provoke war on Iran. Underestimating the Bush administration level of covert planning to aquire their goals and push the PNAC agenda, has proven many the fool to be wrong time and time again.

Some operations, apparently aimed in part at intimidating Iran, are already under way. American Naval tactical aircraft, operating from carriers in the Arabian Sea, have been flying simulated nuclear-weapons delivery missions—rapid ascending maneuvers known as “over the shoulder” bombing—since last summer, the former official said, within range of Iranian coastal radars. Hersch article

Low yield nuclear bunker busters will be used for deep strike zones and they spread limited radioactive contamination, which poses little threat to the oil infrastructure.

[edit on 9-4-2006 by Regenmacher]

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 03:03 PM

Regenmacher wrote: Rioting in the ME would equate to more reason to bomb Islam

Just wanted to point out the absurdity of that sentence. Islam means "submission" is a religion. You cant bomb a religion. What you said is the same as me saying; all the more reason to bomb christianity.

Anyway, i mentioned the following in the ATSNN thread about this, but i'll say it here to get you guys opinions.
If US attacked Shia Iran, what do you think the consequences of such an action would bring to soldiers in Iraq, who are, i think, being supported mainly by Shia's?

[edit on 9-4-2006 by geek101]

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 03:26 PM

Originally posted by geek101
Just wanted to point out the absurdity of that sentence. Islam means "submission" is a religion. You cant bomb a religion. What you said is the same as me saying; all the more reason to bomb christianity.

Maybe you need to learn use a dictionary, before wasting time by playing semantical nonsense and/or acting if you have no clue what I meant in the context of the post.


1. The people or nations that practice Islam; the Muslim world.
2. The civilization developed by the Muslim world.

If your goal was to look absurd, you did a fine job.

As for what an Iranian attack would bring, they would argue that sitting on their hands and waiting for Iran to make the first move is a far worse option.

[edit on 9-4-2006 by Regenmacher]

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 03:29 PM
semantical nonsense or not.....your sentence made no sense. You can bomb muslims, you can bomb an islamic country (if there were such a thing), but you can not bomb islam.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in