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: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Battlefield nukes my ample arse...they do the same damned thing...you really think the innocent people living nearby will write off their radiation poisoning because it was from battlefield nukes? Give me a bloody break. The advocating actually using nuclear weapons has no place in civilized dsicourse, they are an obscenity. The only valid arguement for using them is against another nuclear state that has attacked us.




posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
loam I just reread the New Yorker article from front to back and nowhere in it do the words preemptive nuclear strike appear. Further, the word preemptive never appears. There is much speculation apparent in the article--along with some dang good reporting, but the author continually inserts little comments like "the president is convinced", or "the president believes", etc. and all that is is speculation on the part of the author. There is absolutely no way he could know what the president believes or what he might, or might not, be convinced of. The general tone of the article; however, is very anti-Bush and anti-administration.

The general impression conveyed by the article is that the Bush administration is a loose cannon that could go off any second. And that represents the author's opinions and attitudes, not facts.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68

The general impression conveyed by the article is that the Bush administration is a loose cannon that could go off any second. And that represents the author's opinions and attitudes, not facts.


Are you saying, after 5 years of loose cannoning that the Bush administration isn't? Oh I get it the past 5 years have been a tacky faux news reality drama and Bush is in all honestly the soul of soberity and caution.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   
~~

the most updated news from Bush, is that he says

...plans for a military attack against Iran (is just) 'wild speculation' ...

thanks to, 1:28 PM ET news release titled
'Bush: Force not necessarily needed against Iran'

www.msnbc.msn.com...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

the disinfo faction, cast a trolling bait into the water, and a whole-bunch
took a bite at the bait !



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Battlefield nukes my ample arse...they do the same damned thing...


You are saying that a small yield strategically placed battlefield nuclear
bomb over a high priority target is going to do the same thing that an
H bomb dropped on a city does?? Comeon now
they aren't even
in the same league.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by grover
Battlefield nukes my ample arse...they do the same damned thing...


You are saying that a small yield strategically placed battlefield nuclear
bomb over a high priority target is going to do the same thing that an
H bomb dropped on a city does?? Comeon now
they aren't even
in the same league.




Seriously, battlefield nukes seem pretty legit, they have been studied for years by the U.|S. What an intimidating weapon, dial-a-blast technology.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Don't you get it? Even that talk of "small yield battlefield nukes" is wrong. The whole idea is to cuteify them and make using them a non issue. That is BS. From a strictly moral standpoint nuclear weapons are wrong, and from an actual useage standpoint its insane....combatant A uses a battlefield nuke against his opponant...combatant B ups the ante and takes out a city, combatant A responds in kind etc. and so forth...and don't say it won't happen because when there is nothing left to lose...why not? That is why I honestly feel Saddam didn't have the WMD we claimed, he didn't move them or didn't use them because he wanted America to look bad (we did that to ourselves) he didn't use them because he didn't have them, he had long since been defanged.

All of that aside...to use nuclears on a country we think might be developing them (not have them mind you) preemptively is crazy.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   

is it really the US's place to disarm this country??


Yes but in retrospect.. Is it really wise standing out and letting another nation get wiped out because you didn't act?? If Iran gains nuclear warhead Israel is under serious risks.. Something will have to be done.

I'm in full agreement with using direct tactical weapons to wipe out this threat.. I'd much rather it that our soldiers going in and many more dying. This is ONLY if every other diplomatic reasoning has failed.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   
i cannot believe that people actually think we're gonna let our ICBMs fly over this thing. one ICBM is over kill for this. "Nuclear weapons, OMG we're all gonna die."

its a hard choice to make.

its like the decision to drop the bomb on japan. that was a tough decision to make. Truman said he'd never do anything like that again and he didnt. He also saved million.

what do you do? invade iran? with what? Bomb it into submission?

sit back and let them continue to possibly make a bomb? that should be enough to scare people. a radical islamic nation who's president openly denies the exsistance of the holocaust and has openly called for the destruction of isreal(isreal is no saint but they have the right to exist) to possibly have the most destructive weapons ever invented.

you just want to sit back and let # happen, THEN do something.

action needs to be taken.

people fail to realize that difficult decisions need to be made from time to time, and thank god these people werent alive during WWII when the fate of the world was really in jeopardy.

"but with bush in power the world is in jeopardy!!"

har har, havent heard that one before.

im no bush-ite but at least hes planning on doing something rather than just refering Iran to the UN. thats like telling your mom that a bully is getting ready to pick on you. it doesnt really do anything.

action needs to be taken, though all options of action do need to be considered. and if bush does decide to use these mini nukes lets just hope other nations know what the hell we are doing with them as to not upset anyone



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I assume someone hasn't posted this yet...

From the Union of Concerned Scientists:

www.ucsusa.org...



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I believe any nation or group who detonates a nuke will have officially started WWIII and all hell will break loose immediately.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flinx
I assume someone hasn't posted this yet...

From the Union of Concerned Scientists:

www.ucsusa.org...


That is soo messed up its not even funny...how could they even be alowed to do that? how about we plant one under the presidents home and see how he likes it.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by 9ine_Lives
how about we plant one under the presidents home and see how he likes it.


Be careful.
A man in his position--the most powerful man on earth--can make such a wish become reality--by planting it under your house, then simply say: "Oops."

Threatening the President is not kosher.
The temptation to do so lends to the dictum concerning drug use: "Think twice."





seekerof



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by 9ine_Lives
how about we plant one under the presidents home and see how he likes it.

Be careful.
A man in his position--the most powerful man on earth--can make such a wish become reality--by planting it under your house, then simply say: "Oops."

Threatening the President is not kosher.
The temptation to do so lends to the dictum concerning drug use: "Think twice."
seekerof


That sounds about right aswell. Hes the sort of person who gets insulted by what somebody said, and retaliates with blood shed.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 07:50 PM
link   
As so often on my occasional visits to this bulletin board, I am dismayed by the sloppy and partial thinking prevalent here.

All this fuss about 'pre-emptive strikes': Iraq has no nukes, is not likely to have any for at least ten years (according to CIA estimates) and the faked laptop evidence is just another more elaborate ruse like the Niger documents. The US, on the other hand, has lots of nukes (and Israel has around 200, in violation of the selectively-enforced Non-Proliferation Treaty) and has, post-Bush's accession, abandoned its 'no first use' policy. Therefore the use of nuclear bunker-busters on a wide range of targets throughout Iraq - which is what is being proposed in the face of some relatively sane opposition from within the Pentagon (why do you think all these generals are going public NOW and coming out against Rumsfeld?) - is pre-emptive. Whether the words are in Hersh's article or not (oh, that was such a pathetic argument, it makes me want to puke).

And as the UK measured significant fall-out from the DU weaponry used in the blitzkrieg "Shock and Awe" ("Appal and Disgust", more like) I should expect Europe to be the recipient of more heightened radiation pollution should the madmen in the White House execute their next planned folly. Which they will, in a matter of weeks or months, I surmise.

Remember that all this was written out in the PNAC documents. You can't say you weren't warned.

For those of you intent on slamming Seymour Hersh, he's been proven right so often it's just ridiculous. He said there would not be any WMD in Iraq. He broke the story of the torture in Abu Ghraib (which most of the rest of the world, unlike the gung-ho "patriots" here, think is an abomination). He broke the story of the My Lai massacre. Whether you frothing patriots like it or not, he exposes war crimes. I found it particularly funny that an article which was cited as being critical of Hersh in an earlier post turned out, when I actually read it, to be an admiring portrait and included a link to someone who even posted an apology for attacking him for saying there would be no WMDs to discover in Iraq. I've seen him lecture: he's very serious and intelligent and only goes as far as he can verify from several sources both within and outside the US government. If anything, he's cautious.

I suspect most of those patriot sheeple fell hook, line and sinker for the US administration's lies about Iraq (and about Afghanistan, too) and are FALLING FOR IT AGAIN over Iran. What was it your linguistically-challenged president (I note with some amusement that his mispronunciation of the word 'nuclear' has become quite a fashion amongst those of you who cannot correctly spell your first language) said? "Fool me once... shame on you... fool me twice... er... fool... ah... you won't get fooled again". Well, he's heard a Who song, how lovely.

But so many of you are utterly willing to believe the sheerest fantasies, which are, in order:

Iran is a threat to the US (it's the other way around)

The US is interested in a diplomatic solution (just as in Iraq, this is not the case) and

The US are the good guys, bringing liberation and democracy to a grateful world (those of us who know our history find that one hilarious and tragic in equal measure).

It's astonishing, as maintaining these beliefs (particularly the last one) in the face of a torrent of contrary evidence must require a real act of will. Orwell would be astonished at how blatant thought control and groupthink have become in the US. But those of us who have read the Umberto Eco essay on Ways To Recognise a Brownshirt can recognise the slide towards fascism when we see it.

It will be interesting to see how they're going to sell intervention in Venezuela - not coincidentally, a country of great oil reserves. They already tried a coup but that collapsed due to lack of popular support. The demonisation of Chavez has begun in the US media and has even reached the UK...

Some questions the thoughtful among you might like to ponder.

1) Why does the US media always take any assertion made by its government as truthful, even in the face of evidence of deliberate deception?

2) Why do the Iranians hate the US? (A clue: the words "they hate us for our freedoms" are not evidence of thought: a retired CIA analyst was recently quoted as saying - quite rightly - they hate us for our policies)

3) Why do some people in every country insist that their country is the greatest in the world? Can they all be right? Can ANY of them be right?

As one of the true and great Americans said, "Think! It ain't illegal yet! Think!"

Thanks are as ever due to those American citizens on this board (who do seem to be a minority) who help me keep my faith in human nature. I do think you know who you are.


[edit on 10-4-2006 by rich23]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by desert rat
I believe any nation or group who detonates a nuke will have officially started WWIII and all hell will break loose immediately.



and this can be chaucked up to ignoranc and paranoia



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flinx
I assume someone hasn't posted this yet...

From the Union of Concerned Scientists:

www.ucsusa.org...



Well that was interesting, and proves my point I do believe...this adiministration is great with coming up with ideas (note that I didn't say they came up with great ideas) but really suck when it comes to the follow up. Actually I take that back...they don't give a damn so they don't do a follow up,



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Ok, I have a question, how is a battlefield nuke different from a dirty bomb? By using a battlefield nuke, wouldnt that make us like the terrorists we are supposed to be fighting?



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Everybody thinks a nuke has to be a large thing.

There are nukes the size of a grapefruit that can be carried in a paper bag.
I beleive these dont leave any structural damage, but they wipe out all living things.

After all, does Bush want to keep rebuilding? In all likelyhood these would be used and i dont have the correct terminology for them.

Anyone know their name?

[edit on 11-4-2006 by dgtempe]



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Ok.....so the only difference is that a battlefield nuke will damage a building or whatever and a dirty bomb wont?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join