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.

 

Barksdale Missile Number Six: The Stolen Nuclear Weapon

page: 10
259
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 08:52 PM
link   




The problem with destroying the US dollar is that the only states and institutions equipped to do it would be self-destructing in the process. Say you're the Central Bank of China and as a prelude to invading Taiwan, you'd like to take the US out of play without starting a nuclear war. You take all of those US dollars you earned by selling knock-off DVDs and plastic dog poop to the consumers of the United States and... sell them short?

All you'd be doing is giving money away. People would hear that you've temporarily lost your mind and be lining up in front of your door to buy those cheap US dollars. Tom Clancy (in "Debt of Honor") outlined a somewhat plausible way of destroying confidence in the American economic system which MIGHT forestall bargain-hunters from jumping on those cheap greenbacks and undoing what the Chinese are trying to do.

Also, a successful attack on the US Dollar would have the contrary effect (actually, the consistent effect) of making American goods and services cheaper, which would eventually increase demand for those goods and services, making them more expensive after a while - thus restoring the value of the US dollar after the market's had a chance to equilibriate to levels sustainable by world markets. Wealth, like energy and matter, are conserved. They don't really go anywhere.

The US economy is healthy. It isn't going ANYWHERE. I mean, the real estate agents who own most of the properties on Manhattan Island can make a great production of assembling the titles and other instruments describing title in their property, arbitrarily say "We're having a fire sale! The price of everything on and in Manhattan is officially one percent of what it was!" and after the dust clears, the new owners of the property will find buyers who are willing to pay something close to what it was all worth before the "fire sale." Wealth is permanent.

Economic warfare differs from other forms of warfare because it does not require physical destruction but destruction of reputations, confidence, the sorts of things on which transactions involving multiple millions of dollars depend. It works best on financial transactions requiring exact timing. But these transactions have next to no ability to destroy an entire national economy.




posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by PokeyJoe
Thats all well and good, but as far as the Air Force goes, the ACC guys are the ones who handle all the weapons and all the combat things to do with the birds. Therefore it wouldnt make any sense to make someone in AFMC (Air Force Material Command) or any of the other MAJCOM's stop what that are doing in order to review things that have nothing to do with them.


Agreed; but then, by extension from your point, wouldn't it therefore make sense to ground all combat-related aircraft and personnel (as in, all aircraft, weapons and personnel who are governed by the ACC people), as opposed to just the combat-related aircraft and personnel from those three bases, one of which had no obvious connection to the actual incident in question?



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by franzbeckenbauer
Agreed; but then, by extension from your point, wouldn't it therefore make sense to ground all combat-related aircraft and personnel (as in, all aircraft, weapons and personnel who are governed by the ACC people), as opposed to just the combat-related aircraft and personnel from those three bases,


That's exactly what is going to happen.

www.airforcetimes.com...

The stand down is command-wide. ACC is more than 3 bases.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 09:05 PM
link   
plucky feels exactly the way bruce lee does. something is comming, and its not the trent reznor in my earphones, something more dark and foreboding. I fear this friday is the time, yet this morning I thought I woke up to armeggeddon. Im glad Im not the only one. seems like everyone is more on edge than ever before. much like the weeks after 911 2001, Id wake up, scared. this last month is like that but worse. its like waking dreams of fear. I wish I could say that Im thankful to be on this earth, but I cant. I want it all to end. I want the other booty-sock to drop...and soon.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   
damn damn damn!!!!!
just a little while longer and i'm moving to south america.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 09:11 PM
link   
The thread starts off with a story that would make anyone inerested, but what is it based on? Info from sources that are not reliable since they are listed as "anonymous officers". This would make me wonder about the story from the beginning. Who are they and why did then leak this info?

Nobody knows who they are, but there can only be so many officers that would have known about this. So the mliitary will figure out who knew and prosecute them. The behavior of the officers would raise questions about their trustworthiness to hold those positions. You don't report nuclear weapon movement to public media. So why did they?

There are two reasons that I can think of:

1. This was done on purpose to check the trustworthiness of those involved. Those who leaked the story have none after this event.

2. Psychological warfare purposes. Besides using this as a test of trustworthiness it will also make a point that the US can move nuclear weapons no matter what treaty was signed

So this is what I think:

1. We got a few officers that should be removed from service for talking about classified weapons movements

2. A chain of command that might have known about unreliable personnel and did this on purpose to catch them. This will also send a signal to everyone else involved, I call this a "friendly reminder"

3. Trustworthy people to go along with this operation until they catch the rats

4. A public that really knows nothing about nuke movements

5. News agencies that would trust anonymous sources since they want headlines no matter what

6. Someone somewhere in the gov't put together an operation that had two benefits for the security of this nation. This is something that I thought would happen after 9-11 and this is the first public release of any operations that would test our military from the inside. Hopefully you understand what i'm saying.

This is what I think. Those in the military will understand this if they know how serious nuke movements are and those involved in the process must be totally trustworthy. We don't know anything about the officers that reported this in the first place and for all we know they are already being held in confinement for leaking out classified information. This is the one topic that has not been mentioned but is the first thing that comes to my mind.

If that is the case I hope they lock these officers up, then dishonorably discharge them, and thank those who helped in this operation. For all we know these weren't real nukes, but that doesn't matter since the trustworthiness of the officers is what was the main purpose of this event, psychological warfare is secondary.

Feeding on the hysteria is what the media does to get ratings. Any of them would put a spin on a story like this, but they did what the planners of this operation wanted. The media talks about a bunch of lost nukes, but the military completed a possible classified internal operation to check the trustworthiness of people involved with nuclear weapons. Maybe this was also meant to check who would print an article like this?

This is what I think this is but have no way of proving it. I could have said I heard this from an anonymous bunch of officers, but we already know what happens after that.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by franzbeckenbauer

Originally posted by PokeyJoe
Thats all well and good, but as far as the Air Force goes, the ACC guys are the ones who handle all the weapons and all the combat things to do with the birds. Therefore it wouldnt make any sense to make someone in AFMC (Air Force Material Command) or any of the other MAJCOM's stop what that are doing in order to review things that have nothing to do with them.


Agreed; but then, by extension from your point, wouldn't it therefore make sense to ground all combat-related aircraft and personnel (as in, all aircraft, weapons and personnel who are governed by the ACC people), as opposed to just the combat-related aircraft and personnel from those three bases, one of which had no obvious connection to the actual incident in question?


That would be all of ACC...they are the only ones who have anything to do with combat in the Air Force. Pretty much everyone else is support.

ACC is one of 7 MAJCOM's, i think...that would be kinda bad if I didnt know them all huh? LOL.

ACC - Air Combat Command
AFMC - Air Force Material Command
AFSPC - Air Force Space Command
AMC - Air Mobility Command
AETC - Air Education and Training Command
AFSOC Air Force Special Operations Command
AFRC - Air Force Reserve Command

AFSOC probably runs by another set of rules, so the stand down wont apply to them, and ACC is the only other combat related MAJCOM.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Reply to post from vfrickey::

This is incorrect. The institution most responsible for the state of the US economy right now (and the assertion that it is healthy is badly flawed) is the US' Central Bank, the Federal Reserve. And it hasn't self-destructed, and nor will it. It's very simple. The government, by borrowing wildly, is essentially getting the USA into more debt. Who is that debt to? Why, to the Central Bank of course. The Government goes to the Fed and says "lend us X billion dollars - because those idiots there (we, the taxpayers) will pay it back, interest and all". They don't even say please, and the Fed never refuses a loan. The more the government borrows, the more debt develops. If fiscal conditions become unstable because of confidence or whatever other reason, the Fed simply issues more currency - leading to inflation, currently estimated to be running around 15% in the USA. That's all inflation is; the dilution of the money supply. This has no effect on the govt's borrowing, what it DOES do is weaken the population's personal spending power. Many of them default on mortgages and other large loans, and the banks then end up owning real wealth after creating debt out of thin air. They get wealthier and wealthier every single day, all the while issuing billions of dollars and diluting the buying power of ordinary American's money. The Fed has issued trillions of dollars this year alone - and notice how they stopped publicising the M3 a couple of years ago. People now don't even KNOW how badly the Fed is robbing them on a daily basis by inflating the money supply and then creaming off their material wealth via repossessions and real-life labour for money (debt, in reality) that doesn't even exist.

The asssertion that financial transactions do not have the ability to destroy an entire national economy is totally wrong. The Fed caused the Wall Street Crash of 1929 (as well as every other financial crash) by contracting the money supply by 33% leading up to 1929. Notice, of course, that the super-rich ALWAYS (and I DO mean always) manage to get their money out coincidentally just in time to avoid being affected by a crash. Why is that? Simple; because they KNOW it's coming - because it is THEY who engineer it in the first place. This has been proven empirically many times over, simply by examining the amount of money in circulation before and during such crashes. There is only one institution with the authority to issue and withdraw money from circulation; and that is not the US Government...!

[edit on 11-9-2007 by franzbeckenbauer]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 09:17 PM
link   
This thread is not about the economy.

Please stay on topic.



reply to post by NJ Mooch
 


A "reliability test" or "mole hunt"?

Now there's a whole new interesting twist to this story!

.


[edit on 9/11/2007 by Gools]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by NJ Mooch
 


NJ MOOCH....

You know, that is a very interesting way of looking at it...I hadnt thought of it that way. It makes alot more sense than one of the biggest screwups in Air Force history.....things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmm.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Mole hunt? That airman is probably in Guantanamo right now getting his finger nails pulled out to the tune of "the eagle soars" by john ashcroft. poor fella



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by RCarter
That's exactly what is going to happen.

www.airforcetimes.com...

The stand down is command-wide. ACC is more than 3 bases.


Then I stand corrected, and my fears are allayed!


What would happen if there was a 9/11-type event whilst ACC was stood down? Who or what would take up the slack and provide fighter cover?



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 09:23 PM
link   




I figure that the pilots sitting in the training briefings along with everyone else would be scrambled to their jets.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by franzbeckenbauer

What would happen if there was a 9/11-type event whilst ACC was stood down? Who or what would take up the slack and provide fighter cover?


I would be willing to bet that the fast response (Zulu) fighters that are kept hot and on deck will be exactly that on Friday. Hot and on deck and very capable of being in the air in a matter of minutes.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 09:36 PM
link   
If the theory that one nuke has been lifted is correct, then the next question to be asked is where and when will it be used.
Where is anyone's guess, though I'm speculating that New Orleans makes a pretty convienient location. Kind of crappy for me since I'm down wind from N.O.
The when is a coin toss.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by RCarter
I would be willing to bet that the fast response (Zulu) fighters that are kept hot and on deck will be exactly that on Friday. Hot and on deck and very capable of being in the air in a matter of minutes.


Now I'm confused. If there are combat ready fighters are they not governed by ACC? Going from PokeyJoe's explanation earlier, unless I'm misunderstanding him, ACC governs ALL combat-related aircraft and their crews, weapons and (I'd imagine) immediate support, such as fuelling. Surely this also includes fighters that are kept "hot and on deck"? Sorry, I'm not being deliberately pedantic; either I'm missing something you guys are explaining, or what you're explaining doesn't add up!



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 09:43 PM
link   




Even though there is an ACC wide stand down, there are probably still fighters on alert...meaning that the stand down doesnt apply to them, and they are ready to go at a moments notice. Im pretty sure that there are fighters around the country on alert 24-7 regardless of the condition that applies to the rest of the MAJCOM.

I hadnt thought of that...

[edit on 11-9-2007 by PokeyJoe]



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 09:45 PM
link   
pokey joe and other posters fond of quoting entire posts.

Please use the "Reply To" button at the top right of each post.
.



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Gools
 


Sorry....I got hit by you and SkepticOverlord.

Can I get my 20 points back ?



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by PokeyJoe
The thing that your missing is that even though there is an ACC wide stand down, there are probably still fighters on alert...meaning that the stand down doesnt apply to them, and they are ready to go at a moments notice. Im pretty sure that there are fighters around the country on alert 24-7 regardless of the condition that applies to the rest of the MAJCOM.

I hadnt thought of that...


So you missed it too...! At least I'm not the only one as thick as a whale omelette...


But fair comment, makes sense in and of itself.

It does, to a certain extent, bring me full circle to my original point; why exactly are fighters being stood down because of a review of procedures relating to an incident involving bombers. And that some of them probably AREN'T being stood down suggests that the stand-down of fighters is not THAT important anyway...

But, I'll leave it at that, more than anything because it's time for me to hit the hay....! Try and have it all worked out when I check in in the morning guys..!



new topics




 
259
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join