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.

 

Bush Planning to use Nuke on Iran

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by RegenmacherAs 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.



but what if Iran never did make a first move? I honestly cant see them ever doing it. They bluff, and the president of iran is an idiot, but still.
I think it would be disastrous for US troops in Iraq.




posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by geek101
. They bluff, and the president of iran is an idiot, but still.
I think it would be disastrous for US troops in Iraq.


I am all for sitting and waiting too. Whether Bush and cronies are on the same level of logic as you and I is another story.

Troops in Iraq might pull out before it all begins, and reform a new perimeter..

[edit on 9-4-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by geek101

Originally posted by RegenmacherAs 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.



but what if Iran never did make a first move? I honestly cant see them ever doing it. They bluff, and the president of iran is an idiot, but still.
I think it would be disastrous for US troops in Iraq.

Depending on how extreme you want to get with your Conspiracy... What's to stop Bushco from faking the first move?
If they're smart, they could even do it without (much) loss of life by touching something nasty off in an islolated part of Isriel, then claim that the weapon had a poor guidance system (or even better it was intercepted by a Patriot). Ofcource, there's nothing like lots of dead innocent people to justify the deployment of extreme mesures.

Call me paranoid, but that's the first place I'd look if there's an (apparent) attack from Iran.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by firebat
First off, plenty of people "got off their couch" when we invaded Iraq... you just didn't see it plastered on CNN or Fox.

Second, nuclear weapons is an entirely different ballpark than what we're doing in Iraq. Even if they're limited-yield nukes... the fact that we'd use nukes, what 60 years after Hiroshima/Nagasaki... people would not stand for that.

Besides, in my earlier post I meant people worldwide, not just in the U.S.... and people DEFINATELY took to the streets at the onset of the invasion... 10 times worse if we nuke Iran.


Especially since we are the only country in the first place that has ever used nuclear weapons against our enemies in wartime.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   
SWEET...got 'em USE them!!!!!!!!


Don't matter what we think anyway, not to the military. or bush...yeah drop a small tactical nuke, nuke them till they glow. Maybe other counrties agressive as Iran might think twice about trying to develope nuclear weapons....Ya i heard all the whining and crying already about how dumb it is to use a nuke to stop a nuke, well you know what ,....we got them they might not, either way i say blast them.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   
My relentless optimism regarding the good of humanity prevents me from believing such a thing will ever come to pass. I refuse to believe that America could allow itself to sink so low in my life time. If America can preemptively use a nuclear weapon without massive political backlash(I don't care if it's a 1kiloton nuclear handgrenade) there is no limit to the evil it will consider. I'll believe it when I see the mushroom cloud at which point I'll tearfully burn my flag because it has been iredeemably stained by the actions of those who claim to represent it. My flag deserves better then to become a incontrovertible testament to hypocrisy.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by boogyman
If America can preemptively use a nuclear weapon without massive political backlash(I don't care if it's a 1kiloton nuclear handgrenade) there is no limit to the evil it will consider. I'll believe it when I see the mushroom cloud at which point I'll tearfully burn my flag because it has been iredeemably stained by the actions of those who claim to represent it. My flag deserves better then to become a incontrovertible testament to hypocrisy.

Excellent statement; I could not choose better words myself. I totally agree with what you said.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Why doesn't someone put Bush on a lie detector and then we will all know the thruths behind his plans?



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar

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

cheers
Omega.

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]



Agreed and one word that comes to my mind is MONEY .allthough i am still not sure what to believe.

Omega



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 01:15 AM
link   
As a very few of us have always suspected. Thsi just at long last confirms it. Bush should be taken out and hung right now from the very nearest old sour apple tree. Jay!:. What the devil do you think is going to happen if he does drop a nuke on iran they will retalerate and that will be the end of that indeed perhaps the end of everything Bush is completly mad he just might become the greatest mass muderer since Audolph Hitler see Doctor Starngelove the movie!;



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 01:27 AM
link   
This i feel is a very valid thought.
He is indeed insane . Nuking iran would result in retaliation but i cant thinking that if all this is true it is another one of Bushes money making selfish scams. as i have come to understand there is a formula that is this .
US initiation + Irani retaliation = War (which in turn ) = Money for the US

Just a thought allthough i would like to know what you all think about this.

Cheers Omega



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by cyraxx
SWEET...got 'em USE them!!!!!!!!


Don't matter what we think anyway, not to the military. or bush...yeah drop a small tactical nuke, nuke them till they glow. Maybe other counrties agressive as Iran might think twice about trying to develope nuclear weapons....Ya i heard all the whining and crying already about how dumb it is to use a nuke to stop a nuke, well you know what ,....we got them they might not, either way i say blast them.

I thought these forums were about denying ignorance, not wallowing in in it.
Meh, I guess it's still the internet.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 05:06 AM
link   
-----------------------------------------------

"Britain's foreign secretary called the idea of a nuclear strike "completely nuts.""

apnews.myway.com...
-----------------------------------------------

so, if Bush does actually use nukes against Iran, can we use Straw's quote as evidence when we commit Bush to a mental institution? you can forget about the hanging bit. bush has worked too hard on his insanity defense.....half the country already believes he's journeyed far off the deep end...

or course Straw could be saying we're all nuts for considering the idea that bush might actually do such a thing, I suspose.

[edit on 10-4-2006 by dawnstar]




[edit on 10-4-2006 by dawnstar]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Maybie Bush thinks that using his big weapons of mass destruction makes him look like a big and powerfull man .Maybie with his big nukes he is making up for his small brain?? in anycase i think that he should grow some balls and try to talk or negotiate instead of getting in cheap shots on other countries for going against his hypocritical thoughts.

Omega



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Ofcourse the US could nuke Iran, then again the US could also see oil go up to 150$/barrel and stock markets crashing worldwide.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   
I have reserved my opinions on this until now. And I am quite shocked at my conclusions on this.


I think we should use TACTICAL nuclear bunker busters on Iran’s underground nuclear facilities.

Don’t get me wrong, I am anti nuke as much as anybody. But there are some specifics here that have not matched any situation in our history since the development of these terrible weapons.

#1 Iran is building underground nuclear sites with the sole intent to avoid any sort of current conventional attack. That means they expect to have these sites be the focus of an attack.

#2 These are sites are buried far underground, any tactical nuclear explosion would be underground, not a great deal different than a test, I.e. no atmospheric nuclear detonations.

#3 There is nuclear material at those sites already that would be released in any type of effective attack. I.e. there is going to be fallout no matter what, it’s a nuclear weapons facility! How would we even know nuclear bunker busters were even used? Radioactive levels? It will be there either way.

So, we have illegal underground, presumable hardened, nuclear weapons facilities built for the sole purpose of being conventional attack proof. As a result of the nature of the facilities, there is an abundance of nuclear material present anyways. Why not use a nuclear weapon to destroy it? Think about it, an underground nuclear explosion on a target already filled with nuclear material. How would we even know nukes were used? Really?

Bottom line: Iran is taking great measures to create a nuclear weapons program. Modified Sahab-3 missiles, underground hardened bunkers, genocide ridden rhetoric against Israel and the west, and basically walking away from many viable and generous offers from the world to provide the solution to the problem. Iran has plans that can mean only trouble and they cannot be allowed to have the nuclear weapons they desire to make those plans a reality. If using small, tactical bunker busters is the solution then I support it 100%.

I should mention I do not condone “nuking Iran”, I support the use of specialized bunker busting bombs targeting underground nuclear sites only, big difference.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Does Iran have underground nuclear facilities the same way Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?

How do we know this? Is it just because our intelligence told us so? If they jump on Iran as fast as they jumped on Iraq, and since having admitted that our intelligence was a joke regarding Iraq, then we must assume that the war on terror was a planned event and Iran is the next step in the process.

Peace


[edit on 10-4-2006 by Dr Love]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Actually Dr, (I dont have time to find the links at this moment), there has been a truck load of recent findings stating there was absolutly WMD's in Iraq. Some Russian officials have all but admitted helping Iraq move it out of the country and destroy it. There have even been tapes recently released with Saddam himself speaking of the destruction of the WMD's. Seeker just made a great post on this. So the good Doctor, your "clever" response is bunk. "A" for effort though.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by firebat
I see Europe, especially France, as well as the MIddle-East going absolutely "balistic" over something like this.


'Especially France'. You say that like France is somebody important.
They aren't. And there are only two reasons why France would
'go balistic' .. 1 - because they hate America so anything this
country does they'll complain about and 2 - their appeasing
government is in bed with the radical muslims in the Middle East
in a hopeless effort to get the croc to bite them last.

Battlefield nukes ARE going to happen. Their radiation yield and
power aren't like the bombs that we HAD to drop on Nagasaki and
Hiroshima. However, they ARE going to be used at some point.
The changing target needs demand it.

I'm sure anti-Americans around the planet will get all in a huff and
emotionally scream 'OMG nukes!'. But I don't care. If they need to be
used we will use them. Our enemies wouldn't hesitate to use them
on us if they had them. Best that they die instead of us.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
I do not condone “nuking Iran”, I support the use of specialized bunker
busting bombs targeting underground nuclear sites only, big difference.



You have voted skippytjc for the Way Above Top Secret award.
You have two more votes this month.

That's a difference that is being lost on many people. They hear
'Bush is going to nuke Iran' and they invision H bombs raining down
and turning the country into glass.

We are talking about battlefield nuclear bombs. There is a BIG difference.
However, the emotions of people just hear 'nuke' and they picture all sorts
of massive things happening, which isn't even close to reality.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join