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.

 

Nuke to kill ? not sure.

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I was just thinking, are these "terrorist" countrys getting nukes to kill us, or protect them selves

Does Korea and other countrys have Nukes to kill the western way of life, Burgers, Football and so on. So are there getting ready to kill us, or getting ready to protect them selves when either some enemy, problys the US, carrying on the roll there on.

So is it nukes to Kill us, or nukes to protect them selves ?

You Deside.

Take Care, Vix

[edit on 2-9-2007 by Vixion]




posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   
If a nation is a proven supporter of terrorists who have been found to attack the U.S., or U.S. interests, I think it's safe to say that the aim to develop a nuclear capability is with the implicit aim to attack, not defend.

North Korea on the other hand? Who knows man? Kim is just.....nuts.

[edit on 2-9-2007 by Zenagain]



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Every third world country can quite easily make biological weapons if they only want to defend themselves against invasion. BUT…

1. Regarding the West: We have it, to use against whoever uses it first.
2. North Korea: As the latest news shows (where they promise to dismantle their entire nuclear programme news.bbc.co.uk...) they just wanted it for more aid, and to get us to eventually (effectively) lift sanctions.
After all there was no way the later was ever going to happen to one of the worlds few truly communist country unless they had the nuclear bomb first, and got rid of it in exchange.
3. Regarding Iran: They also want to ensure regime immortality. Even though Iran is a very libertarian dictatorship, they are stronger for it; due to the fact they have enough democracy to let the state police know exactly who the enemies of the state are (because they proclaim themselves).
With this in mind the only threat is from abroad. Israel has the bomb so why don’t they? This point of view is very hard to argue with if you’re a Iranian nationalist.
After all Israel is after all a pretty crazy country given the way it reacts to a kidnapping in Lebanon, losses 115 troops, and calls it a victory.
Likewise we are also crazy for the way we invaded a unilaterally disarmed Iraq, with a secular government, and a westernised (Saddam), and call that a victory.
Iran is trying to defend itself, and also…
Become the world’s only Shiite superpower, it wants to be the counter wait to Israel, the non-American regional power you can do business with.

I don’t believe Iran actually wants to use the bomb as many of its leaders would go to hell even by the standards of their own religion. Therefore (though they use Islam to maintain control) Mutually Assured Destruction stills applies. Furthermore (even if you were super religious) what man would be happy sitting on God’s knee explaining how the consequences they unleashed caused their own [people to be wiped out?
Ultimately and always; Iran getting the nuclear bomb does not equal Israel being without it.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 09:09 PM
link   
I always thought that nukes were pretty much to attack, not defend. You want defence? Surface to air missiles, stuff that would blow anything hostile out of the air (or water lol).... But that could be completely different. I dunno, its always what I thought. I could be wrong of course lol



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zenagain
If a nation is a proven supporter of terrorists who have been found to attack the U.S., or U.S. interests, I think it's safe to say that the aim to develop a nuclear capability is with the implicit aim to attack, not defend.

North Korea on the other hand? Who knows man? Kim is just.....nuts.

[edit on 2-9-2007 by Zenagain]


You supported the IRA while they where bombing our country,give your nukes back as your clearly going to use them


I can see where your coming from but you have to realize Mutually Assured Destruction as mentioned above in that great post


Mind you i think Nukes are going to get tactical with smaller strike zones/radiation zones.

As fro arabs and persians wanting them,doesnt bother me-we have them and their less warlike than we have been over the last few hundred years.

Pakistan hasnt nuked anyone recently,a lot of people thought India would be toast when they both had them-but there comes the Mutually Assured Destruction angle,you nuke someone,your going to get nuked back



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 02:29 AM
link   
I would HATE, to see what a modern day nuclear warhead could do.
Hiroshima was bad enough, and that was a mouse'fart compared to todays bombs.

The west is the biggest wimp in the business.
We only strike nations whom DONT have nuclear bombs.
We're FORCING people, who want to have a sovereign nation to build the bomb, because thats the only way the west wont RAPE and MANIPULATE their countries assets.

If anyones going to use a nuclear weapon, there's going to be a BIG risk that other nations will follow, because in my mind, he whom breaks the nuclear taboo opens the door for the world to justify it.

No situation, that man can comprehend requires a nuclear retaliation.
Nadda, So anyone whom uses it, does so recklessly, out of order and as a crime against humanity.

As for defense?... lets look at past records.

Did nuclear weapons stop Nkorea from invading?
Did nuclear weapons stop the vietnam war?
Did nuclear weapons stop terrorists from attacking various times?

Nuclear weapons only work when 'nations' are involved in occupying and invading, supposing the nations your invading or occupying has them.
And that mentality went out of the 'civilised-world' back in the 40's...
Unless of course your doing it for corporate gain and making excuses then its tolerated, especially when YOU have them, and other nations dont.

I believe their should be 100 nuclear weapons.
Various designs, from various countries.
There should be one group, akin to the league of nations, united nations or something there of that holds them.
And should anyone committ a haneous crime, IE IRAQ II then this nations will vote, convene and decide wether the use of these weapons would REDUCE the number of innocents killed by the agreesive nation, compared to the amount of people killed OF the aggresive nation, forcing them to stand down.
You can only be accepted into this voting nation, once you BUILD the bomb, because that shows your country is ACTUALLY trying to excel in science, physics etc etc, something that can benefit the world.
And once you build it, you give it to them to use.

So,

If this group was around in 2003, and NO ONE had nuclear weapons... Would the united states of Invaded Iraq, resulting in the biggest conflict man is ever going to witness? knowing full well the world would of voted to 'nuke' DC rather than allow the invasion?
Imagine if Iraq did build a bomb, and were voted into this nation.
Here's the US, threatening to invade... the nations vote that the US is about to commit a grave crime, based on lies for corporate gain.
They vote 89-11 to use the bomb to force the US to stand down.
They use the Iraqi bomb to provide maximum effect..... this would STOP more wars, than bombs do. because you'd only go to war, if your nation depended on it, and before that happens, the nation your defending yourself against would already been dealt with.


food for thought.







[edit on 3-9-2007 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 07:59 AM
link   
The response got screwed up due to the internet connection. I might write it again later when I have more time.

[edit on 4-9-2007 by Styki]



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join