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.

 

nukes

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by doggmann
ok how about the bush admin saying publicly that they are concidering a premepted nuclear attack on iran. is that tangable enough for you!

I'll withhold answering until I see the actual statement that the administration made.

Please provide me a link to the statement in question, from a reputable news source please, and then I'll be happy to answer that question.


Originally posted by doggmann
no i didnt imply that korea was nuked before, im just sayin that its in the realm of possibility that they wuld go into a pissing contest with the states.

If there is one country that America doesn't need to nuke, its N. Korea. The strategic sites are well known and the country is small enough that conventional strikes and ground troops would be sufficient.

Plus, their infrastructure, military establishment, and other strategic hard targets are near enough to urban area and civilian populations that the US would probably err on the side of caution, even if N. Korea sticks a a non-conventional warhead in one of their oversizes bottle-rockets.

The additional "bonus" for the US would be that they answered a horrific deed with a measured and limited response.

Edit-

And as JIMC5499 mentioned, the United States, and most nations with a significant military presence in the world, maintain up to date "What if?" military campaign scenarios. It makes sense, and, honestly, is part of defending national interests. I'm sure that even Castro has contingency plans, ranging from "What if the US attacks?", and "What if another Carribean nation engages in naval attacks/piracy on our shipping and ports?", to "What if Chavez and Venezuela go nuts and decide that WE'RE the bad guys instead of Bush?". Standard policy if you ask me.
[edit on 1-9-2006 by Reality Hurts]

[edit on 1-9-2006 by Reality Hurts]




posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by doggmann
so we should let the states be the only ones who threaten the world??


I don't see the US threatening anyone.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   
tell that to all the arab families digging out their loved ones from a bombed house



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   
How abotu addressing my request for a link, so we can move the conversation forward



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by doggmann
tell that to all the arab families digging out their loved ones from a bombed house


I was under the impression that this thread was about nuclear weapons. Last time I checked the US hasn't employed a nuke since 1945. They haven't threatened anyone with nukes reciently either.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by doggmann
the americans dropped the bomb on japan 60 odd years ago, and everyone after was appauled and said never again.

Where was “everyone appalled” in the use of these weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Today maybe…but not in the period.

My grandfather and five brothers all fought in the Pacific theater and to a man (three now deceased) completely supported the use of the bombs. I don’t know who this is that is supposedly “dying out”.

From March to August 1, 1945, 750k to 1.5 million civilians were killed and millions more displaced directly by US conventional bombing raids, (including the firebombing of Tokyo: sixteen square miles incinerated…far, far less than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined) inside Japan. Estimates are as high as 3.5 million casualties in Japan by all B-29 bombings, Hiroshima and Nagasaki represent less than 10% and not above 15%. (these numbers are available at you fingertips from hundreds of sources)....

On August 1, 1945 (one day) 800 B-29’s caused more civilian deaths than those by “little Boy” and “Fat Man” together. The Japanese military had direct insight to Atomic weapons because they too were working on the project and even their concerns were still clearly focused on the B-29’s, even after the Hiroshima event, because…almost one million tons of yield had been dropped on Japan in five months by B-29s compared to the yield of 36k combined tons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not to mention, the US had completely sealed-off the mainland and was intentionally driving the Japanese into starvation in preparation for the US invasions.

…and if “everyone” “said never again” why did the USSR immediately begin attempts to assemble their own and set-up atomic weapons R&D in April 1946, the Brits in 1948, China in the 1950’s etc…?



Originally posted by doggmannbut i guess those poeple have died out, and all thats left is people who have forgotten history. at least then they could say" we really didnt know what would happen afterwards" but today no one can say that, ok


Precisely…history has been forgotten.


mg



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Ultimately, when all is said and done, a Bush will have been in office for 12 years, not once in all that time have we, as in the US, nuked anyone. Not Korea, not Iran, not Iraq, not anyone...

I'd like to see the link to that so called public threat to nuke Iran preemptively...

The closest I can come is Sec. of State Rice saying that all options concerning Iran were still on the board...having seen that interview...a threat to nuke Iran was not uttered or even vaguely implied.

In the 60 years since the dropping of the two bombs, and the ushering in of the Nuclear Age, not one single bomb has been detonated in anger over a city or nation. Odds are real good that they won't be...the consequenses to whomever did it would be extreme...



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Does Iran really need Nuclear Energy with all that oil ?
I don't think so.
They are definately in the process of developing Nukes.
It might not be that they intend to use them - its the whole thing about joining 'The Big Boys'. To have nuclear weopons makes you look far stronger and gives you more political muscle.
I don't think we should be too agressive towards them given the current political climate. Invasion is a definate no go.....to me anyway.
It's a very difficult situation which needs careful thought. Hopefully Israel or the US will not act without thinking first.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
The facts illustrate that, for the last 60 years, the US ... have resisted the urge to escalate any situation by utilizing their nuclear arsenals. The US could have nuked the North Koreans in the Korean War, nuked the Viet Cong in the Vietnam War, and nuked the Republican Guard in the first or second Iraq War. They didn't.

And don't forget the Cuban missile crisis.

There are some excellent rebuttals here to any accusation that the US is planning a nuclear attack on Iran, NK, or anywhere. But the option should and will remain on the table as a necessary response to an attack on us.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 11:14 AM
link   
What turns my stomach is this,

The peoples of the world banter on and on about treaties and how nations must be held to them, "Oh, the Americans aren't doing this right" or "The Americans have broken international law when they...", "Abu Graib violated the Geneva Convention", "Illegal war in Iraq", etc.

Then when a nation, Iran, breaks what is probably the single most important treaty of our time, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, no one wants to hold them accountable. Their anti-American sentiment clouds their reasoning. The schadenfreud and the "Well, they deserve it" attitude overwhelms their normally rational judgement.

Because this American administration is judging others by a scale different from the one they use to judge themselves, these people have taken it upon themselves to "balance the scales" and hold the US to a set of rules different from that which they use to judge other nations, like Iran.

When a person acts in contradiction to their stated beliefs, i.e. holding someone to a certain set of values (that they agree with), then defending another for doing the samething, that makes them a hypocrite. In fact, Merriam-Webster's specifically defines "hypocrite" as "a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings". America has its problems, but that is no reason for people to succumb to hypocrisy. If you do, you end up compromising yourself.

Though I am being critical, I am in no way trying to start flaming other posters. I'm merely imploring everyone to measure each nation, and the nation's actions, by the same yardstick, be it America, the UK, the Netherlands, Iran, Israel, Syria, or whomever. Don't compromise yourself by judging others through your anger, or you're no better than some sleazy, cheap politician. For all of our sakes, judge by logic, reason, and law, not feelings.

Now, for some, the immediate response upon reading this wil be "Well, if America has nuclear weapons, then all nations should be allowed to have them". To which I remind them to read the last paragraph again. Judge by logic, reason, and law, not feelings. Law prevents nations from acquiring nuclear weapons, reason states that less nuclear nations is a scenario in which the world would be safer, and logic states that if they have signed a treaty, like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, than they should be held to it. Feelings don't enter into it.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 09:35 AM
link   
jsobecky. You have it there. As a "responce" to an attack. According to my understanding of US doctrine, nuclear weapons will be used only, thats only, in responce to an attack on US soil by a national entity using Nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and/or biological weapons. The thinking involved is a nuke is a bug is a gas, and will be responded to with a nuclear weapon.

Conventional attack will be responded to by conventional means. Under no circumstance will nuclear weapons be used preemptively.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull

Conventional attack will be responded to by conventional means. Under no circumstance will nuclear weapons be used preemptively.


This may enlighten you...
Pre-Emptive Nuclear Strike Policy



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Mythatsabigprobe.

Thanks for the link, I found it interesting and informative. It seemed though to be more along the lines of contingency planning, in the event of future happenings.

Bear with me here: I tongleling my tang this morning, or tangling my fingers
.

To the best of my knowledge the responce posture remains as it has for the last several decades. You hit us with wmd's...we nuke you.

If that policy has changed, I will indeed become worried...



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
This whole issue really is moot. The U.S. isn't going to nuke Iran, not unless something catastrophic were to happen first. Catastrophic being: New York, or some other large Western city suddenly up and disappearing in a blaze of atomic fire, and all evidence pointing to Iran, like missile trajectory etc..., and since Iran doesn't pocess a delivery system, as yet, capable of reaching Europe, muchless America, the point is moot.


Don't need a missle. Don't even need a plane.

A truck would do; although with radiation detectors supposedly located at the entry to major bridges, tunnels and tollways, that option might be a bit risky.

A boat would work just fine, if you want to take out a port city. Advantage is you could carry a really crude bomb (which tends to be rather bulky) and even give it some pretty effective shielding; just the sort of thing a terrorist group is likely to be able to cobble up. Not as risky as using a truck (especially if you can further shield the radiation leakage from the port authorities and the Coast Gaurd N.E.S.T. teams by using the hull, bilge, fuel and the sea water itself to absorb any stray radiation.

If your nuke is small enough, say like what might be used on a missle, you could even float in by air using GPS guided balloons: an update of the technique used quite effectively by the Japanese during WWll. Advantage would be that you could detonate your device at the best possible altitude to cause the most destruction for the device's yield. Come in high and slow and the radar-invisible materials availble on the open market for balloons will likely never show up on defense screens, especially given the relatively small visible cross-section you'd present.

Obvious disadvatage is the relative unpredictability of the winds. But with a nuke, it doesn't really matter if you're off target by a few hundred yards. Then of course we're talking a pretty sophisticated weapon here: such a device is likely beyond the native capabilities of any terrorist organization, and most countries, as well.

Iran doesn't yet posses, as far as we know, the ability to build a nuclear weapon, certainly not one that could be delivered by missle. Nor does Iran posses a missle that could hit the US, if launched from Iran.

But Iran does have missles that can hit Israel. And Israel knows this. And Israel knows, that short of using its nuclear weapons, there is nothing she can do on her own to effectively prevent Iran from developing missle-based nukes.

So if a Western city goes up in a blaze of atomic fire, the finger will be pointed at Iran, or some other Arabic enemy du jour, whether or not there is evidence.

Because just as the US would never nuke itself, it would likewise Never accuse a friend and ally of nuking us, even if there Was evidence! That would be too embarrassing to admit, too destabilizing of a strategic region to act upon.

Besides, it would present the perfect opportunity to eradicate a shared threat (Iran) using the only (Not in My opinion!) effective means available (nuke bunker-busters) without incurring the wrath of the civilized world.

Why, I'm sure that the world would understand and even applaud: Eye for an Eye, Nukes for a Nuke!



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaHumana
Now, a lot of people are going to say I read too much "mainstream media/history"
........

......there's lots of speculation regarding the talks that took place between the dropping of Little Man over Hiroshima and Fat Boy over Nagasaki (or is it vice-versa? whatever...) But it was also total war back then, very much unlike today.


It was Little Boy and Fat Man. I'd say you haven't read that much history



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join