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.

 

What will be the American reaction to a nuclear strike on the US?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by brill
Most likely a domino effect. No matter how much attempted diplomacy is shoveled out a nuclear retaliation would spell the end of mankind. In some ways it might not be such a bad thing. For the most part this planet & its citizens are festering in a day to day sewer so why not just start over again. I'm certain we can't do any worse.

brill


Well..that would bring about the world peace everybody dreams of right?


Why the hell not!




posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
To say China and Russia would try to finish the US off is ridiculous. Okay so they nuke the US mainland. What about the nuclear subs and bases around the world? They wouldn't nuke the US or go to war if there was a massive terrorist attack. That is just unfounded craziness.


For 30 year, that's what the USSR and the USA were prepared to do each other. There were elements in military and civilian leadership positions on both sides who more than willing to press the button in the belief that they would survive and their enemies would be destroyed.
There are elites in positions of power today who believe the only way that they(true mankind) can survive will be to eliminate 90% of us(lesser mankind to them) with a few million of us to keep around as laborers and workers. Its not my idea but theirs. We're heading for human engineered population crash of greater than biblical proportions. These elites don't care about what happens to the rest of humanity as long as they survive. They will use any means necessary to achieve their goal upto and including nuclear and biological warfare.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   
crgintx, what does that have to do with my post about how China and Russia won't attack the US with nukes if we were bombed?



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   
As long as the nuke dropped on the white house....oh not to mention Fran Drescher and Pat O Reilly house's i think Amercia could care less



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   
I think it would be chaos.


Utter Chaos



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by helium3
As long as the nuke dropped on the white house....oh not to mention Fran Drescher and Pat O Reilly house's i think Amercia could care less


Well, you still have to think of the innocent Americans in the Washington D.C. area. Not everybody there is an oil addicted criminal. You have to think of the security guards around the White House, they have nothing to do with this. Tourists, military men and women, people just going to work or working, children in schools in the Washington D.C. area..there would be innocent life lost and it would be grounds for a nuclear response. Now, if you said, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and all those morons die ONLY, then sure, I don't care. But obviously that wouldn't be the case with a nuke.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by crgintx
We're heading for human engineered population crash of greater than biblical proportions. These elites don't care about what happens to the rest of humanity as long as they survive. They will use any means necessary to achieve their goal upto and including nuclear and biological warfare.


crgintx......YOU WIN! I think that you have clearly stated the state of affairs in the world of politics and religion as it exists today.....as it exists at the level of "the elite", as it exists for those who have "the power".

They rule. We are their property, their work force, their soldiers, their puppets. We live by their rules. We die by their rules. Those who obey, live and, if lucky, prosper. Disobey the rules....you get the idea.

"They" don't like to be noticed so "they" stay out of the limelight. But "you" know that "they" are there. But "they" know that "you" are there so they cloud the issues with "blue smoke and mirrors" so that "you" aren't really sure that "they" exist. A certain amount of rabble-rousing is allowed, to be expected and it's probably even healthy for "their" slaves/property/citizens to maintain a bit of esprit, hope.

But when the world is getting crowded, when the resources are diminishing, when the third world -- a world mired in superstition, illiteracy, overpopulation and religious beliefs that do not co-exist well-- begins to reap the benefits of advanced technologies and when even WMD are within their grasp, the elite will stop at nothing.

So, when faced with an overcrowded garage that needs cleaning, the homeowner is often ruthless. He, of course, discards those things that hold the least significance first. When faced with an overcrowded planet that "needs cleaning" the "elite" are ruthless. Of course, the elite will discard those that hold the least significance first.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by DickBinBush
Well, you still have to think of the innocent Americans in the Washington D.C. area. Not everybody there is an oil addicted criminal. You have to think of the security guards around the White House, they have nothing to do with this. Tourists, military men and women, people just going to work or working, children in schools in the Washington D.C. area..there would be innocent life lost and it would be grounds for a nuclear response. Now, if you said, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and all those morons die ONLY, then sure, I don't care. But obviously that wouldn't be the case with a nuke.

And yet, you say in other posts that our reaction SHOULD be nuclear retalliation that would undeniably kill scores of innocent civilians, regardless the nation we attack.....



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant

Originally posted by crgintx
We're heading for human engineered population crash of greater than biblical proportions. These elites don't care about what happens to the rest of humanity as long as they survive. They will use any means necessary to achieve their goal upto and including nuclear and biological warfare.


crgintx......YOU WIN! I think that you have clearly stated the state of affairs in the world of politics and religion as it exists today.....as it exists at the level of "the elite", as it exists for those who have "the power".

They rule. We are their property, their work force, their soldiers, their puppets. We live by their rules. We die by their rules. Those who obey, live and, if lucky, prosper. Disobey the rules....you get the idea.

"They" don't like to be noticed so "they" stay out of the limelight. But "you" know that "they" are there. But "they" know that "you" are there so they cloud the issues with "blue smoke and mirrors" so that "you" aren't really sure that "they" exist. A certain amount of rabble-rousing is allowed, to be expected and it's probably even healthy for "their" slaves/property/citizens to maintain a bit of esprit, hope.

But when the world is getting crowded, when the resources are diminishing, when the third world -- a world mired in superstition, illiteracy, overpopulation and religious beliefs that do not co-exist well-- begins to reap the benefits of advanced technologies and when even WMD are within their grasp, the elite will stop at nothing.

So, when faced with an overcrowded garage that needs cleaning, the homeowner is often ruthless. He, of course, discards those things that hold the least significance first. When faced with an overcrowded planet that "needs cleaning" the "elite" are ruthless. Of course, the elite will discard those that hold the least significance first.



Both of your posts are excellent. Scary..very scary in fact..but very true.

But I have something to say about "them"..


As "I" am sure "they" are aware "I" exist, "I" would just like to let "them" know that if "they" are watching, "they" can kiss "my" ass.

I'm not afraid of them..you guys shouldn't be either



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by firebat

Originally posted by DickBinBush
Well, you still have to think of the innocent Americans in the Washington D.C. area. Not everybody there is an oil addicted criminal. You have to think of the security guards around the White House, they have nothing to do with this. Tourists, military men and women, people just going to work or working, children in schools in the Washington D.C. area..there would be innocent life lost and it would be grounds for a nuclear response. Now, if you said, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and all those morons die ONLY, then sure, I don't care. But obviously that wouldn't be the case with a nuke.

And yet, you say in other posts that our reaction SHOULD be nuclear retalliation that would undeniably kill scores of innocent civilians, regardless the nation we attack.....


I never said an un-provoked nuclear strike was right. If we are attacked first then we need to respond.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
crgintx, what does that have to do with my post about how China and Russia won't attack the US with nukes if we were bombed?


We live in a world filled with fanatics and madmen where women wrap themselves in explosives to kill other people's children and you expect reason and logic in a time of chaos?
You've made a false assumption that any nuclear terrorist attack on the US isn't part of larger agenda or campaign. The idea of taking down the US through asymetrical warfare was thought up by 2 ChiCom Col's in the '80's. They even suggested using commercial jet aircraft as guided missiles. That's where Tom Clancy got the idea for his novel. It's my contention that if any nuclear attack does take place in the US, the hands pulling the Islamic terrorists puppets strings will be Communist Chinese. Yes, it might seem crazy to attack the US after a nuclear terrorist attack with more nuclear weapons but you always want to attack an enemy when they're confused or their attention is diverted.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by crgintx
you always want to attack an enemy when they're confused or their attention is diverted.


That is assuming our government would be "confused" and their "attention is diverted". If a nuclear attack occurs, the government either ALLOWED it to happen, OR, they did it themselves. Either way, they knew it was coming. I highly doubt they would be "confused". Bush might be, but the government as a whole, no. This would be a HUGE mistake by China to launch such an attack.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Militarily speaking, the response has already been developed - regardless of whatever plan Mr. Cheney may have ordered in light of a second 9/11. Military strategies for all possible and potential contingencies are devised, practiced and regularly updated. They have been for decades. 'War Games' aren't just for target practice - they run specific pre-planned scenarios.

Mutually assured destruction aside, the military and philosophical response to a nuke - of any kind - is nuclear. It's a principle necessity of warfare to respond in kind, and it's a long-standing U.S. policy to do so -- and publicly say so. Even if not necessary militarily, it would be necessary to satisfy the collective outrage on the part of the American population.

The retalliation is not immediate, but that's not for the sake of 'devising' the response or embarking on elaborate investigations. Like 9/11, the perpetrators are quickly identified -- not because our government "did it and already knows", but because we actually DO have a bit of an intelligence establishment and a perpetrator's fingerprints would be quickly recognized.

A pause is both necessary and appropriate on the part of America as a global super-power. It is not a time for gaining permission or building concensus, but for aligning offensive and defensive forces appropriately. More than a day, less than a month later - most likely within a week - the perpetrator(s) would feel a very small portion of the American arsenal.

Peace between nations and lands is never achieved through dialog. History demonstrates that true and lasting peace occurs only upon the complete and humiliating devastation of the opponent.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by thepittportion of the American arsenal.

History demonstrates that true and lasting peace occurs only upon the complete and humiliating devastation of the opponent.


oh oh.....I think we have problems. While I think that we devastated the Germans and Japanese by the end of WWII, I'm beginning to think that we may not have "humiliated" them enough! Damn. this can only mean one thing.....we can expect Germany and Japanese to attack us again. Thank God the French were humiliated by everyone.....we don't see them fighting anyone.

Peace through humiliation!



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Okay here's the deal. If a nuke or two were to be launched at the United States here is how it goes down. First, those nukes won't even make it to United States. Second, the country that launched the nukes would be immediately identified. Third, I would buy a case of beer, turn on my new 42" high definition plasma TV and kick back. Fourth, and this is important part so pay attention -- Do you remember what it was like to play Atari's Missile Command and you make it to like level 7 and you have maybe 2 or 3 cities left? You blanket the skies trying to preevent any missile from getting through and suddenly you hear that sickening sound of no missiles left to shield your capital. KAAAABOOOOOOOOOMMMM! Fitth, I click of the TV off and crawl into my nice, clean, comfortable bed and dream about Elle McPhearson.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by PULVERlZER
The continental U.S. need not worry too much at this point. If there was a 'nuke' sent anywhere it be most likely be at an american embassy somewhere near or around the middle east. I can't think of one country which hates the U.S. to the point of launching a nuclear attack is ALSO in possession of an ICBM....which would be required to reach continental U.S....so, everybody relax. All you need to worry about are the 'terror cells' currently living in your country tampering with your water supply and poisoning your spinach.

our spinach is just fine(on the east coast anyway), the continental US has plenty to worry about, ever heard of suitcase bombs, the soviets had them during the cold war, and THEY ARE NOT ALL ACCOUNTED FOR.



said he “did not have time to find out how many such nuclear warheads there were” prior to his dismissal by President Yeltsin on 18 October 1996. He argued that “a very thorough investigation is necessary,” because the majority of the GRU special forces brigades had been based along the USSR's borders and that some of the ADMs may have been left behind in the former Soviet republics after the Soviet Union collapsed. Lebed concluded that the question was, “how many such ‘cases’ remained on the territory of Russian and other CIS member states?”
cns.miis.edu...
also, Iran hates us that much, if they had enough nukes and the balls to use them, they would wipe us off the face of the earth.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   
[quote=DickBinBush]NORAD, my friend. They are buried deep in the mountains. They are capable of operating up to 30 days after a nuclear explosion. They can control all of the United States' nuclear weapons. And let's say your scenario does happen, if the United States is no more because of this blast, NORAD would take that oppurtunity to fire at all of our enemies.

you are right, norad can control all of the US strategic forces for about a month, even cut off from the world except for a radio tower, but, even norad would not survive a direct hit from a nuclear weapon. they might not even survive if one were to hit Colorado Springs. There are virtualy no underground shelters that could survive a direct hit. Why you ask? simple: accuracy, nukes have gotten more accurate. when norad was built, nukes could miss by as much as 5 miles. thats close enough to kill on the surface but not underground. the developement of more accurate guiding systems has led to the ability to destroy even the deepest reinforce bunkers. Plus, if "they" are targeting the military instaliations(spelling?) then, cheyene mountain is gonna be on the top of the list, right after the blue ridge complex, and Washington DC



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   
ok. for a start... if someone did want to bomb usa, how would they get the nuke in???. wel if they wanted to do it by sea, they wuld have to get pritty close to the coastline to launch it in.(300-400miles) Now if they hadnt already been detected by the navy, the airforce would probobly detect and track the nuke and destroy it mid flight before it could detonate or even reach inland.

if it was to be deployd by flight...1 cancell out passanger airline.the thing would be to heavy and would creat a war at customs.2 if it was a millitary aircraft, where would it take off from?(dont forget, military planes cant travel great distances.the things are too heavy and consume too much fuel). not by aircraft carrier becaus it would be detected by the usa or other navy sources...these things are big on radar and no doubt would be aproached by another opposition vessal.

terrorists couldnt afford one or create one without killing themselves so forget about that one.

and if by a merricle one did go off, usa wouldnt go kicking off becaus they would just get bombed again or be scared of being bombed again.
in fact what would happen is that usa and brittain and all other allies would try to dissarm that country. if that faild they would probobly blow the # out of them.
dont forget all the wars that the us are envolved in at the moment...if they where bombed, what would they doo? drop iraq, afganistan etc???they couldnt do becaus if they did, eastern countrys would ali against us. us and uk are really strugaling in iraq and afghanistan now.and dont give me all this bul# that america are so tuff and this, that and the other(no dis-respect mind) because iv just come back from iraq. it would be impossible to start a nuclear war in modern times. if there was, it wold spell armogeddan.
every country would # themselves and destroy all the other countries



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by in990207
wold spell armogeddan.


I'm ignoring all the rest of your completely un-intelligent post, that is based on nothing, and focusing on these three words as they are very funny to me



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Depends on who does the attack and who helps them carry out the attack. Most likely is an AQ attack with bomb(s) on major US cities. Depending on who aided in abetted those attacks in whatever manner will determine the US response. The western areas of Pakistan near the Afghan border will really become a "no man's land" of a nuclear wasteland.

Any country who helps or congratulates AQ in the slightest way will probably get lumped in and will have effectively signed their own death warrants. The US will tell the UN and the Nations of the world, not ask permission, what it is going to do. There is no major nuclear power that will do anything to stop the US from retaliating, as they would do the same thing in their shoes. The repercussions of the attack will be swift, devastating and final, if only for setting a precedence so this kind of attack never happens again. Many will die for the folly of a few determined terrorists. It truly will be the turning point in the War on Terror.

At the very least I would expect either attacks on or regime changes by the local populace in North Korea, Iran, Syria even possibly Pakistan depending on whatthey do or do not do. State sponsoring of terrorism will cease to be a viable policy for states wishing to survive in a post nuclear attack on America.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join