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.

 

Nuclear device will detonate

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Sometime in 2004 WITHIN the United States, some type of radiation attack will occur. If I remember correctly, Tom Ridge stated approximately 2 years ago, that there is a real good chance terrorists could and would set off a dirty bomb or hit a nuclear powerplant within 1-2 years.

My prediction is this: If GWB reelection starts to dwindle and it looks like certain defeat for him, there will be a nuclear detonation of some type WITHIN the continental U.S.

But I hope not....




posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Its kind of funny they worry about dirty bombs, when if you look into it there have been many nuclear weapons lost on american soil. Back some time ago Red Cell at the behest of the US Gov was testing security at military bases and managed to swipe a few suitcase nukes. Kind of makes you feel a little uneasy to think we have lost nukes on our own soil and never recovered them huh?



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 07:42 PM
link   
I keep tellin you guys taht itll probally be the superbowl!

its "the sum of all fears"



and lets hope tom ridge is wrong


[Edited on 1-31-2004 by KrazyIvan]



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Well the in the bible code book, there was a code about
nuclear weapon setting off in new york. this year this quartal. I hope its not true



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 07:56 PM
link   
I dont see how 'if bushes numbers start to fall' another attack will help him. I think that will only cement his record as incompetent.



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ashley
I dont see how 'if bushes numbers start to fall' another attack will help him. I think that will only cement his record as incompetent.


Because he uses the fear to his advantage. It seems like his whole presidency and campaign focuses on the future threat of terrorism and that we need him to protect us. Course he could also just play the Osama card to up his ratings near poll time.



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Cival War?

Seems like the United States is about to implode.

Deep



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by alternateheaven

Originally posted by ashley
I dont see how 'if bushes numbers start to fall' another attack will help him. I think that will only cement his record as incompetent.


Because he uses the fear to his advantage. It seems like his whole presidency and campaign focuses on the future threat of terrorism and that we need him to protect us. Course he could also just play the Osama card to up his ratings near poll time.


He's also playing the economy card, which is still the #1 issue in America.

Also, I can't imagine a God-fearing man like GWB would set off a nuke just to get re-elected.



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica

He's also playing the economy card, which is still the #1 issue in America.

Also, I can't imagine a God-fearing man like GWB would set off a nuke just to get re-elected.


True, I doubt he would order it directly, but rather allow some kind of attack to happen by ignoring warnings, or some other easier to play off action. Course I don't think it will take intervention by shrub, Its almost to the point of a self-fufilling prophecy now with how frequently we are told there will be future terrorist attacks.



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Well according to some, he flew those planes himself into the towers, why not a nuke?

Deep



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
Well according to some, he flew those planes himself into the towers, why not a nuke?

Deep


lol, now that is a good one. somehow that doesnt jive with the idea of him being of primate intelligence, but then its hard to sift facts from bs anymore.



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
I keep tellin you guys taht itll probally be the superbowl!

its "the sum of all fears"


# that's the worst thing that could happen, think how many people will be at the superbowl, but that brings up another point, security, they won't be able to do anything from the ground unless it's a damn good plan to break the security, and the air will be monitored as well



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 09:46 PM
link   
I was just thinking about it, and one of the best defenses against a nuclear weapon could be the very afterefect it produces (EMP). Say a nuclear weapon was discoevered and the timer was counting down, instead of trying to disarm it and possible cause a premature detonation, wouldnt a emp weapon work better to shut down all the electrical circuts of the bomb before it can detonate?



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
Well according to some, he flew those planes himself into the towers, why not a nuke?

Deep

Because those people are wrong?



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by alternateheaven

I was just thinking about it, and one of the best defenses against a nuclear weapon could be the very afterefect it produces (EMP). Say a nuclear weapon was discoevered and the timer was counting down, instead of trying to disarm it and possible cause a premature detonation, wouldnt a emp weapon work better to shut down all the electrical circuts of the bomb before it can detonate?


the charge that overloads the circut could set it off, would you take that risk?



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer

Originally posted by alternateheaven

I was just thinking about it, and one of the best defenses against a nuclear weapon could be the very afterefect it produces (EMP). Say a nuclear weapon was discoevered and the timer was counting down, instead of trying to disarm it and possible cause a premature detonation, wouldnt a emp weapon work better to shut down all the electrical circuts of the bomb before it can detonate?


the charge that overloads the circut could set it off, would you take that risk?


Most nuclear weapons have so many safeties on them that it is next to impossible to set them off accidentally.



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by alternateheaven

I was just thinking about it, and one of the best defenses against a nuclear weapon could be the very afterefect it produces (EMP). Say a nuclear weapon was discoevered and the timer was counting down, instead of trying to disarm it and possible cause a premature detonation, wouldnt a emp weapon work better to shut down all the electrical circuts of the bomb before it can detonate?

Problem with that is, now you've got a city of people without electricity, and now you've got to go and repalce every circuit. I think that'd be more deadly than just a bomb.



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Problem with that is, now you've got a city of people without electricity, and now you've got to go and repalce every circuit. I think that'd be more deadly than just a bomb.


what the # is wrong with you? you would rather have a nuclear weapon kill every person in the city than risk an ELECTRICAL PROBLEM?



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Morrison

Problem with that is, now you've got a city of people without electricity, and now you've got to go and repalce every circuit. I think that'd be more deadly than just a bomb.


what the # is wrong with you? you would rather have a nuclear weapon kill every person in the city than risk an ELECTRICAL PROBLEM?

It's not an "electrical problem". It's the complete destruction of every computer in the city. That'll wreak havoc on hospitals, water supply (my biggest concern), communications, etc... We saw what happened with the Northeast Blackout, and that was a simple power grid failure. An EMP would screw up much more than the grid.

The entire city losing electricity for an extended period of time could kill more people than whatever small nuke (and it would have to be small) they manage to get into the city.

I'm not saying it's definitely worse, but it's possible, and I wouldn't want someoen to go all willy-nilly with the EMPs without thinking things through.

Disagree with someone in one thread and then they're all over your back...



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Considering EMP technology isint really that well-known yet, whos to say it has to be able to take out an entire city? One would think that with time it could possibly be condensed to something a little larger than a hand grenade for use in situations such as hostage taking, baricades, etc? and and at the most only affect a city block or two? One or two city blocks of dead electronics is a small price to pay for the lives of many more, the structures not destroyed by the blast, as well as the pollution and damage to the environment. Of course all this hinges on the hypothetical existence of EMP weapons, so lets not hold our breath on this one.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join