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.

 

NEWS: Bush Plans Preemptive Nuclear Strike Against Iran

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Russia, China, North Korea, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan.

Every one of those countries had "preemptive nuclear strikes" planned. Funny, I don't remember hearing about nuclear explosions in any of them.




posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyraxx
If another country is trying to develope nuclear weapons, and is considered by N.A.T.O. to be an agressive country, then I personally feel that it is well with in our international rights to launch a preemptive strike, to secure peace in the region.


Hum. . . I don't know about that. . . nuclear weapons will kill entire populations in the cities that they will be targeting.

I thought that killing thousands of people of one race or ethnic group is called genocide.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by cyraxx
If another country is trying to develope nuclear weapons, and is considered by N.A.T.O. to be an agressive country, then I personally feel that it is well with in our international rights to launch a preemptive strike, to secure peace in the region.


Hum. . . I don't know about that. . . nuclear weapons will kill entire populations in the cities that they will be targeting.

I thought that killing thousands of people of one race or ethnic group is called genocide.



Marg you should read more about the next gen of nukes they will only take out smaller areas like city blocks.

Question for you Marg, this refers to Pre-emptive strikes, would you try to stop a terrorist from blowing you up? What if you knew a week before he was going to do it. When would you kill him? If you killed him wouldn't that be murder?



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   
For those wondering whether Mr. Hersh was misquoted, here is the actual article he wrote for the April 17 issue of the New Yorker magazine.

www.newyorker.com...

I will say what I said in the other thread regarding this article. 1) While probable that this is merely planning and not operational policy or strategy at this time, the very contemplation of the use of nuclear weaponry of any kind is deeply disturbing to me, and 2) I feel there is a very real risk of miscalculation by one or both sides, simply because both sides see the other's military posture as offensive rather than defensive in nature. Both sides see the other as the aggressor, and Iran may feel it has no alternative to pursuing nuclear armaments. If true, then conflict may become increasingly inevitable. This is my fear.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit

Question for you Marg, this refers to Pre-emptive strikes, would you try to stop a terrorist from blowing you up?


Under your way of thinking we should be going around the world targeting any country that is a thread to the US. Right?

But for some reason we don't want China, or NK, we have made Pakistan our friends and even want to swipe nuclear recipes with India.

Kind of hypocritical that only Iraq and Iran are the targets here.


What if you knew a week before he was going to do it. When would you kill him? If you killed him wouldn't that be murder?


You would be brought up on charges even if you kill in self defense, yes is murder and so the results of preemptive wars because we dislike the leaders of the country we go after or we don't like when they talk bad about our friends.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   
I have to agree with Zaphod here.

Whether Nukes are to be used, or not. You have to plan for the worst.
Or would you rather have an UNplanned nuclear attack?
A haphazard use of the worlds most powerfull weapons. I don't think so.

All scenarios should be imagined, and planned for. No matter how remote the possibility of the worst occurring.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   
I like that...

"He is a wacko! Except for his Lai Mai, Vietnam, Abu Gharib, Iraq, 9/11, Gitmo Torture, Illegal dealings with Halliburton, and illegal wiretapping, he is wrong!"

Like what? Do Bush Bots not even read what they type?



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   
what a load of rubbish. The media have been reporting this for the last few years and nothing's happened. They're not going to invade Iran because they don't have the capability as all their troops need to stay in iraq.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   
marg, you can't answer the question because you can't escape the box you constructed for yourself. I know your answer, you are indifferent(it doesn't matter) that's funny because so is the terrorist that just blew your family to shreds amigo! Adios!



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 11:57 PM
link   
US have the virtual capacity of sustaining 4 armed front and win all of them if those fronts does not take too much time. Iraq is going to be long, Afghanistan is almost finish, so there is place for the Iran front!

Remember, the US army is 2.7 millions of troops. 1.5 of active in 2005 + reserve forces of 1.2. There is only 144 000 troops in Iraq! There still 1.350.000 troops available! Isn't that sufficiant for Iran? Yes. So an invasion later of only the province of Khuzestan is possible because this is there that almost 90% of the Iran's oil is. Is not that large, only 62 238 km2..


[edit on 9-4-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
I have to agree with Zaphod here.

Whether Nukes are to be used, or not. You have to plan for the worst.
Or would you rather have an UNplanned nuclear attack?
A haphazard use of the worlds most powerfull weapons. I don't think so.

All scenarios should be imagined, and planned for. No matter how remote the possibility of the worst occurring.


depending on where you live, what do you surpose the chances of survilval for you if a nuclear war did break out?? how long would you have to duck and cover? my advice would be (here in Aus) to head west and dont look back. But im off topic here, yes it is true what you say; we have to plan for the worst. But i think once the first one goes off it will open a pandoras box of complete mayhem of a nuclear chess game.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Here is a link to the latest news on this topic:

news.yahoo.com...

In the article the administration again states they are not planning to use nukes on Iran.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Does anybody have any info on how iran is reacting to these alligations?



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Here is a link to the latest news on this topic:

news.yahoo.com...

In the article the administration again states they are not planning to use nukes on Iran.


Of course they are saying they won't use nukes against Iran, mini-nukes are not considered as nuclear because they are safe to civilians, they are now considered conventionnals weapons!



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by AceWombat04
For those wondering whether Mr. Hersh was misquoted, here is the actual article he wrote for the April 17 issue of the New Yorker magazine.

www.newyorker.com...



Good job.


And so to dispense with the "misquote" idea proffered earlier:




The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. “Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,” the former senior intelligence official said. “ ‘Decisive’ is the key word of the Air Force’s planning. It’s a tough decision. But we made it in Japan.”

...

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.” He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.” The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”

The adviser added, however, that the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons in such situations has gained support from the Defense Science Board, an advisory panel whose members are selected by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. “They’re telling the Pentagon that we can build the B61 with more blast and less radiation,” he said.

The chairman of the Defense Science Board is William Schneider, Jr., an Under-Secretary of State in the Reagan Administration. In January, 2001, as President Bush prepared to take office, Schneider served on an ad-hoc panel on nuclear forces sponsored by the National Institute for Public Policy, a conservative think tank. The panel’s report recommended treating tactical nuclear weapons as an essential part of the U.S. arsenal and noted their suitability “for those occasions when the certain and prompt destruction of high priority targets is essential and beyond the promise of conventional weapons.” Several signers of the report are now prominent members of the Bush Administration, including Stephen Hadley, the national-security adviser; Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; and Robert Joseph, the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.

...



This is a fascinating article, and does a good job explaining what a mess we are in...

Let's hope cooler minds prevail on both sides.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by shots
...is a Wacko just like the reporter who made the outrageous statements in this story....


What precisely makes him a wacko?


Hidden messages in speech that are uncovered if you reverse it. This was exactly the same idea that the authorities 30 years ago had about Black Sabbath (excellant heavy metal band) in that if you turned the turntable backwards there was hidden satanic message. Total bollocks of course ! The authorities probably didn't like the ideas expressed in songs like "War Pigs" which are still poignent today.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Why does the rest of the world have to suffer for the apathy of the american people when only a minute portion of their population votes.Once again the world is waiting on whether we are to be drawn into a war which will be started by a psychotic war mongerer who comes from a family of money which was obtained through drugs.
If this idiot Bush and his cronies utilise nukes as part of convential warfare then the only nation that should support the US is the US.
Yes Iran is a major threat to world peace and yes something needs to be done,but done peaceably and through diplomatic channels with the backing of the rest of the world.
I just hope after 6 years of Bush the American people will wake up and start utilising their right to vote,Bush and the admin from idiotville need to depart and someone with more acumen and compassion brought to the fore.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Most amusing I am surprised its in the open though!!

I thought the scenario would play out like this:

Its night, a dark shape is seen fleetingly crossing the sky by various anomonous, unknown, ordinary Iranians...its not on radar.
At a nuclear facility some moments later there is a disasterous nuclear "accident". The disbelief by the Iranian authority is obvious. How could such an "accident" occur.

The US etc, state this proves that the Iranians must have been up to no good, or are incapable of running a safe nuclear program...whether it be civil or military.

If the Iranians allowed outside agencies to investigate and they find weapon grade radiation, wow the smoking gun!!


The Iranians would no doubt believe and suggest US involement, the US response "Well they would wouldn'y they."

Conspiracy theorists would come up with the usual stuff and the truth gets buried in the truth...

I know this is a simplistic scenario but I found it amusing in a sick sort of way..

Umm a thought, wasn't Iran a fire worshiping Zoroastrian place once?? Worship them flames baby....



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   
I know full well that we have to plan for the worst....but does the worst have to be done by us?

To unilaterally and preemptively attack a non-nuclear country on the presumption that they will or might someday have nuclear weapons it the hieght of luncy, it is beyond immoral it is amoral and obscene.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

He's talking about battlefield nukes ... not H bombs raining down upon
the entire country.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join