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.

 

If a Nuke is dropped, what will happen next?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
How about ignoring the fact television and internet will be wiped out, how about humanity being wiped? The thought of nuclear war is just utterly ridiculous to myself, nobody is going to win.

No kidding, Chissler.
I do not think people realize what the hell theyre talking about. They say we're going to win, our weapons are better....
.....nobody wins except THE IRRESPONSIBLE NUT CASES, in this case OUR GOVERNMENT.
This isnt even a Republican/Democrat v. another nut case from Iran. This is humanity against humanity which is why i get so pissed when i go thru the threads and people say we have no choice. YES WE DO.

We have a choice and a duty not to be threatening with anything nuclear. But this administration sees no "other option"....bull.....
This is also the administration who wants to usher Armageddon in. because they're radical nuts and some are falling for it.

Sad and ignorant.




posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 02:59 AM
link   
If Iran was "nuked" then no one would be able to get any oil right?

The place would be smashed to pieces and would be contaminated for years!



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 03:07 AM
link   
The wells would be intact, and the entire country wouldn't be irradiated. Small portions of it would be but not the entire country. Nuclear weapons aren't as "evil" as they're made out to be. I'm not saying we should be using them, just getting the "real" facts about radiation, before we start screaming "Oh my god if a nuke goes off we're all going to die!"



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 03:12 AM
link   
You best be concerned about the innocent instead of just calculating to see if the winds would bring the cloud over to the U>S>A.

As long as you figure WE will be ok, the hell with the rest?


Not evil?
A nuke is not evil.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
A single nuclear weapon is NOT going to cause an all out nuclear war. A massive nuclear attack on Iran might, but dropping one, or even two weapons won't invoke the massive nuclear war that everyone seems to think.


You can't tell what the reaction will be. If a nuclear weapon is used a line will have been crossed. Doesn't matter whether that weapon is small enough to destroy only its immediate target, or large enough to wipe out a country. It's nuclear, and within the given situation an attack of that nature is totally unprecedented, thus the reactions to such an attack will also very likely be of an unprecedented nature.

Certain countries hate the US enough to use such an attack as impetus for attacks of their own. You haven't yet have experienced terrorists attacking your country from within using nuclear weapons, but once you go nuclear where an attack on an Arab state is concerned, it surely won't be long before before that situation changes. You go nuclear and you not only lose the moral high ground, you make the use of such weapons more acceptable to others....and you lose the right to complain when a nuclear device gets detonated in one of your cities.

The Iraq situation has made more than enough of the world's populace become somewhat sick and tired of US aggression and imperialism, perceived or real. You attack Iran, especially with nukes, and I believe the US will reap one hell of a whirlwind, not only nuclear, but also on political, international and financial levels.

Even if an American nuclear strike doesn't trigger nuclear war, America will be severely and possibly terminally damaged by the world's reaction to such an attack.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 03:32 AM
link   
I AM concerned about the use of nuclear weapons. But a nuke is just that, a WEAPON. Is a gun evil because it can be used to kill? How about a knife? How about a car? How about planes? A plane crash can kill 4 or 500 people in a single crash, does that make it evil? Weapons are not evil. Their USE is what makes them evil. If I use a gun to walk into the street and kill 5 people are random, that's an evil act. If I use the same gun to kill the person that's breaking into my house to kill my family, it's not evil.

People hear "nuclear" and they freak, because it emits radiation, and everyone knows how horrible radiation is.
Radiation is the most misunderstood thing ever by the common person. Yes it can kill horribly, and can be do terrible things to people, but that coal plant down the street emits more radiation in a single year than most nuclear weapons in the inventory. Where's the outrage over coal plants?

We have been so brainwashed to believe that nuclear weapons are the scourge of the earth, and if one goes off we're all going to die, that people don't even TRY to understand them. Because they already KNOW that they're evil.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 03:35 AM
link   
America is the only country in the world that has ever used the Atomic bomb.

The world knows, as far as evil goes, this is where to look. The older generations wouldnt be surprised at our actions around the world.

We're so hell bent about people having these capabilities, yet we keep right on abusing our powers...



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Using the mightiest power the world knows is EVIL.

I dont care how you sweeten that up.


*its 4am and i'm arguing about nukes, i've lost it*



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Yes we are. And how does that make them "evil"? Did you know that more people were killed in one night of bombing in Tokyo than in Hiroshima OR Nagasaki?



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Sure. Man, look at the significance of evil this way. A nuke is potentially an end of the world device, which the UNITED STATES looks upon as a casual weapon, TILL IT HITS HOME.

Where are you going to hide? Are you human? No offense, but you need to look at the ramifications of this.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 04:15 AM
link   
G'day all,

There are many different ways to view the point of "what if a nuke is dropped, what will happen next?"

Like some previous posts by fellow members -

- if it was one nuke then it could be taken as a warning and Iran will comply immediately. With strong criticism from both China and Russia as would be expected.

- one nuke dropped on the facility could make Tehran to comply as the previous point, but Russia and Iran could be so angered by such an action that they nuke an American city, base, teritory in retaliation as a protest and counter warning. Which might end there or might escalate.

- If the Iranians detect that America has launched a nuclear missile at them or has detected high altitude bombers coming in for the drop then they might retaliate with every missile that they have at Israel, many of the US bases in the mid-east aswell as oil facilities, block the persian gulf and mine it, attack interests in Afghanistan and Europe. Russia might also jump in discreetly on this bandwagon and launch some missiles themselves and pretend it was the Iranians to give them covert assistance.

-a nuke launched at Iran might also wield a nasty surprise for both the US and Israel with the distinct possibility of Iran already harbouring Russian and Chinese nuke missiles in preparation for a US attack which would see them launching all they have at Israel and other America's allies.

-a nuke on Iran might bring Syria into the conflict from the other side, being closer to Israel, launch to impact time would be far shorter and more effective.

These are just some of the scenarios that I predict are possible outcomes in this eventuating. There is one other........

Those of you who say that a nuclear war is unwinnable are slightly wrong - it might not be 100% winnable but 70% would still be a victory, yes a massive loss of life unlike anything history has ever seen will happen, but this would be a casualty of war in the scenario.


To win, you'd need to not only take out the Iranian nuclear facility, but you would have to take out the possibility of any of Irans supporters being able to launch any sort of counter offensive after the initial attack. This would mean taking out China's and Russias infrastructure in ONE MASSIVE SWOOP, destroying all of their sattellites, radar installations, airports, communication towers, military bases, power plants of all kinds, and each and every ICBM silo would need to take a direct hit. Im not saying that you would need nukes for all of this, but some of them and you'd keep that to a minimum as the requirement was needed such as a heavily fortified/buried installation. You would in effect, disable both the nations military and civilian infrastructure, thus disableing their ability for any sort of succesful counter attack.

Yes, then you would have to worry about the submarines in the water that would still have the second strike ability, but this would be considerable less to worry about having been able to take out their first strike ability. Im not talking about a blitzkrieg of major populated areas unless there was irefutable evidence that an ICBM was positioned in a town centre.

Yes, the amount of dust, soot and ash aswell as radiuoactive particles would fill the atmosphere and lower the surface tempriture of the planet abit, but a couple of years of 3 to 5 degrees lower tempritures would be survivable. Just imagine would would be the result if all 3 nations had the opportunity to release their entire stockpile at each other at the same time. Then the result would be an undeniable nuclear winter.

I'm just talking about making a massive, quick strike to take out any possible nuclear counter attck. I agree, it cannot be 100% effective, but it sure as hell would be the best option that the west has to survive this and any future threats to our civilisation.

Ideally, I'd love to see all sides sit together at a table and talk it these issues over whilst drinking some of the worlds finest scotch and a peace pipe or two. Who knows, they might even end up in each others arms at the end of the night and realise that they all have more in common than they realise! (Thou it'd be great somehow I don't see it happening)

Melbourne_Militia



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 04:24 AM
link   
I put this in another thread, but here it is again:

www.zmag.org...




FKh: What is the rationale for America using nukes on Iran, given that even the CIA believes Iran is at least "10 years" from any nuclear weapon production?

JH: The use of nuclear weapons against Iran will be justified by "military necessity". In theory, Iran could equip missile warheads with chemical or biological weapons and aim them at Israeli cities or US bases in the area. The declared US policy of "preemption" would "justify" using highly accurate earth penetrating nuclear weapons to destroy missile silos or suspected underground facilities housing WMD's. The argument will be made that a few hundred or thousand Iranian "collateral damage" casualties of low yield earth penetrating nuclear weapons is preferable to potential tens of thousands of US or Israeli casualties from Iranian missiles equipped with WMD warheads.

The US accuses Iran of having clandestine chemical and biological weapons facilities, even though it doesn't present proof of such assertions, and despite the fact that Iran is signatory of the Chemical Weapons Convention and Biological Weapons Convention treaties. Furthermore the US has worked very hard over the past 15 years to create the perception that nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are all similar "WMD"'s, to prepare the ground for the US use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon countries. However the scientific fact is, nuclear weapons are million-fold more destructive than all other weapons and in contrast to chemical and biological weapons there is no protection against nuclear weapons



Pure evil.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
How about ignoring the fact television and internet will be wiped out, how about humanity being wiped? The thought of nuclear war is just utterly ridiculous to myself, nobody is going to win.


Hypothetically, let's say that the North Koreans launched an IRBM, with a chemical warhead, at US military installations in Okinawa and an ICBM, with a nuclear warhead, at a major city on the west coast of the United States. No matter whether or not the strikes were successful, the Americans would probably strike North Korea's national command authority and DPRK military installations and forces with strategic and tactical nuclear weapons. These strikes would probably result in limited fallout over North Korea and probably no significant fallout at all over South Korean and Chinese soil.

There are scenarios in which there could occur a limited instance of a nuclear strike on a country or even a significant exchange of nuclear weapons between two countries (for example between India and Pakistan) that would not result in the end of life on earth as we know it.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xar Ke Zeth
[
Just to be picky, the internet was indeed a military research project, but it wasn't designed to be warproof - it had multiple redundancies to survive network losses, because the components weren't all that reliable.


yes it was designed to be war proof. that was the concept of arpanet. to maintain communications during an ionizing blackout from nuclear war.

considering the number of fiber backbones, the number of servers around the country, it would take an extremely large number of cuts in the system to cause it to go down. of course you are also forgetting the internet2 system.

all backbones, or at least it was that way in the usa a few years ago, interconnect at mae east and mae west. they may interconnect at many more places now.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 05:39 AM
link   
NUKE on Iran??????

It doesn't matter where, what country a nuke is used, all the world countries will rally together and impose economic problems on eachother and you can bet that the price of EVERYTHING will sky rocket, jobs will be lost, gas will go insainly high. I for one am not too worried about it. yes it does bother me a little....but I do have 2 different locations I can move my family to, very remote area's, and I know we will be okay...in this day and age it would be a good idea for anyone reading this to keep an emergency plan in mind. I have everything we would need to live else where for a long time already gathered together, we would be on the road in about 20 min.....my advice,START PLANNING...



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe


Sure. Man, look at the significance of evil this way. A nuke is potentially an end of the world device, which the UNITED STATES looks upon as a casual weapon, TILL IT HITS HOME.

Where are you going to hide? Are you human? No offense, but you need to look at the ramifications of this.

Could you please explain in what possible circumstances would the use of nuclear weapons by either the Iranians or United States against each other or, in the case of the Iranians carrying out a nuclear strike on Israel, result in the end of the world?



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 05:45 AM
link   

posted by Melbourne_Militia: “G'day all, There are many different ways to view the point of "what if a nuke is dropped, what will happen next?" Like some previous posts by fellow members - if it was one nuke then it could be taken as a warning and Iran will comply immediately. With strong criticism from both China and Russia would be expected. [Edited by Don W]


We should not overlook the fallout from any nuclear device, weapon or not. Although the US has detonated more than 1,000 nukes over the years, it is never possible to predict the isotopes that will be created in any particular device. Air bursts are obviously less productive of harmful isotopes than a ground burst. Afghan and Pakistan share Iran’s eastern border. Just over those countries is north of India, Nepal, and far west China. Any fallout from Iran could potentially effect upwards of 200 - 300 million people.

If the Rambo-esque White House and the Oberfuhrer at the Pentagon decide bombing is the “method of choice” to deal with Iran, surely if there is a God in Heaven (or anywhere) the Desperate Trio - Geo W, VP Cheney and the Oberfuhrer - are just saber rattling and would never nuke Iran. Or any country.

From them, I could imagine using the Daisy cutters or delayed explosion deep penetration bombs in the 20,000 pound class on Iran. Even that is an act of war which will have ramifications around the world. And predicably, not good for the US and us ordinary citizens stuck with Geo W until January 20, 2009. Uh, don’t I wish we had a parliamentary system!


“ . . Russia and Iran could be so angered by such an action they might nuke an American city, base, territory in retaliation as a protest and counter warning . . If the Iranians detect that America has launched a nuclear missile at them or has detected high altitude bombers coming in for the drop then they might retaliate with every missile that they have at Israel, many of the US bases in the mid-east as well as oil facilities, block the Persian gulf and attack US interests in Afghanistan and Europe . .


I am afraid Americans born after 1962 have not lived through the nuclear era and have not as much concern over the probable consequences of using nuclear weapons anywhere on the planet. That’s 2 generations of Americans and probably 60% of our population. This does not bode well for the future of our human race. With leaders like “Mad Dog” Geo W, ignorance reigns supreme! “If you don’t know your history, you are likely to repeat it.” At least the bad parts.


“ . . Those of you who say a nuclear war is unwinnable are slightly wrong - it might not be 100% winnable but 70% would still be a victory . . you would have to take out the possibility of Iran’s supporters launching any counter offensive This means taking out Chinese and Russian infrastructure . . You would disable both nation’s military . . you have to worry about their submarines that would have the second strike ability . . the amount of radioactive particles, dust and ash would fill the atmosphere and lower the surface temperature of the planet a bit . . it cannot be 100% effective . . I'd love to see all sides sit together at a table and talk these issues over whilst drinking some single malt Glenlivet scotch . . “ Melbourne_Militia [Heavily edited by Don W]


Your scenario is an intro to World War Three, M/M. This nincompoop - Bush 43 - is unpredictable. I don’t know how much of his antics is due to his mixing religio-politics - last days - or how much is just plainly due to snorting too much white powder when he was playing around at college. In any case, the world is at risk until January 20, 2009. I thought Tony Blair was sort of the “designated driver” for Geo W assigned by the EU and or UN. Now I’m not sure.

[edit on 4/13/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 05:57 AM
link   
What's so unpredictable about this current administration?



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton

Originally posted by dgtempe



Could you please explain in what possible circumstances would the use of nuclear weapons by either the Iranians or United States against each other or, in the case of the Iranians carrying out a nuclear strike on Israel, result in the end of the world?
Do you think other countries will sit by while we wipe out whomever? I dont think so- Take cover. They'll be coming from every which way.
Are you sadistic? Do you think this is all well and good?
I dont want to come off as someone who disrespects your beleifs but think about it.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 06:07 AM
link   

posted by Lanton


posted by dgtempe: “Sure, look at the significance of evil this way. A nuke is potentially an end of the world device, which the UNITED STATES looks upon as a casual weapon, TILL IT HITS HOME. Where are you going to hide? Are you human? No offense, but you need to look at the ramifications of this. [Edited by Don W]


Could you please explain in what possible circumstances would the use of nuclear weapons by either the Iranians or United States against each other or, in the case of the Iranians carrying out a nuclear strike on Israel, result in the end of the world? [Edited by Don W]


The world has gone on since 1945 - for 61 years - without using a nuclear device in anger. I was alive and well when the August 6 and August 9 bombs were dropped on Japan. I am sorry it was done but I supported Pres. Truman then and I support Pres. Truman now. The world was enveloped in total war and it is ludicrous to argue whether the US should have used the bombs or not. Pres. Truman would have been impeached and rightly so, if it was learned we had a decisive weapon and did not use it. You cannot turn a nation’s energy to wage war on and off like a light switch.

In 1973, in the early days of the Yom Kippur War, when the Egyptians were moving easily across the Sinai towards Israel, Israel warned Egypt that should the very existence of the State of Israel come into question, Israel would use nuclear bombs on the Aswan High Dam. Half the population of Egypt would have been a risk from the rushing waters thereby unleashed.

Because there are 150 million Arabs living in 1 million square miles of space, and 6 million Jewish persons living in less than 10,000 square miles. I hate nuclear weapons. But until the world is free of them, I can accept the use of any weapon including nuclear by Israel, as a weapon of last resort, to preserve their existence. Fini.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join