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.

 

Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, Nato told

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, Nato told


www.guardian.co.uk

The west must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the "imminent" spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, according to a radical manifesto for a new Nato by five of the west's most senior military officers and strategists.
Calling for root-and-branch reform of Nato and a new pact drawing the US, Nato and the European Union together in a "grand strategy" to tackle the challenges of an increasingly brutal world.
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Israel may have to take military action against Iran: Bolton




posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   
We're not really sure who we're supposed to drop the nukes on, but it has to be somebody...

And we wonder why we're in such a mess right now...Its like the crazies get loonier and loonier every year.

Yeah, let's just start dropping nukes indiscriminately to stop further nuclear proliferation.

Does something sound inherently wrong with that statement?

Am I the only one who thinks this is insane?

www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by biggie smalls
 


Five nations are backing this 'manifesto' as it is being called: US, Britain, Germany, France, and the Netherlands.


They insist that a "first strike" nuclear option remains an "indispensable instrument" since there is "simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world".


The problem with this statement is that they don't identify who we are trying to stop from getting nuclear weapons. This is clearly aimed at places like Iran, North Korea, and China who for all we know already have nuclear weapons. Russia isn't too far away from all of these places and has plenty of leftovers from the Cold War.


The manifesto has been written following discussions with active commanders and policymakers, many of whom are unable or unwilling to publicly air their views. It has been presented to the Pentagon in Washington and to Nato's secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, over the past 10 days. The proposals are likely to be discussed at a Nato summit in Bucharest in April.


Isn't it very convenient that this report is coming out now, 10 days after its been proposed?

This has already been discussed and we're hearing the first news now...

"Hey civilians, by the way, we're going to bomb Iran and you can't do a damn thing about it!"

Here's the kicker:


The five commanders argue that the west's values and way of life are under threat, but the west is struggling to summon the will to defend them. The key threats are:
· Political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism.
· The "dark side" of globalisation, meaning international terrorism, organised crime and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
· Climate change and energy security, entailing a contest for resources and potential "environmental" migration on a mass scale.
· The weakening of the nation state as well as of organisations such as the UN, Nato and the EU.



And how do these 'commanders' plan on preventing these 'atrocities?'




To prevail, the generals call for an overhaul of Nato decision-taking methods, a new "directorate" of US, European and Nato leaders to respond rapidly to crises, and an end to EU "obstruction" of and rivalry with Nato. Among the most radical changes demanded are:
· A shift from consensus decision-taking in Nato bodies to majority voting, meaning faster action through an end to national vetoes.
· The abolition of national caveats in Nato operations of the kind that plague the Afghan campaign.
· No role in decision-taking on Nato operations for alliance members who are not taking part in the operations.
· The use of force without UN security council authorisation when "immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings".



Sorry about the large quote, but this information needs to be easily accessible. Mods please don't remove the large quote thanks.

The authors of this 'manifesto' seem to be quite interesting characters as well:

John Shalikashvili is the first foreign immigrant to reach Four Star General (US), Klaus Naumann is a Nato strategist (Germany), Lord Inge "served on the Butler inquiry into Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and British intelligence" (we all know how reliable that intelligence has been- Britain), Henk van den Breemen is an accomplished organist...Yeah I didn't make that up (Netherlands), and Jacques Lanxade is a Navy admiral (France).


This has got to be one big joke. I couldn't believe what I read about these characters. The truth is sometimes stranger than fiction ain't it?

[edit on 1/21/2008 by biggie smalls]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by biggie smalls
Am I the only one who thinks this is insane?


lol, no, and you may be one of the few left that thinks and is not insane.


Unfortunately this topic of attacking Iran has been so widely discussed here in other threads, the thought of re-entering it exhausts me... But imo attacking Iran will lead to "blowback" that may come from previously deemed "uncompelled to act" countries.

What is happening imo is that the administration, realizing that it has little public support for the war, and even less troops to maintain a three or four front conventional war (Iran/Syria- remember their mutual defense pact), is now turning to their only other option- long range missiles. But even then they know it will be just a temporary bandaid on the Iranian nuclear program.

Unfortunately, no one will be able to make a bandaid big enough if they inflict that wound. It will incite a whole new wave of extremists, destabilize their economy and potentially cause Russia and even China to seriously consider putting a stop to it. A nuclear strike would not only be inhumane, due to the loss of life and fallout in the Persian Gulf, it will empower other nations to use preemptive nuclear strikes. On us.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Why must we live in "an increasingly brutal world"? Who says so? The monied elite love war and love money. They finance both sides of the wars and come out richer every time. War keeps men distracted. Distracted from trying to bettter the world for everyone and from digging deeper into the roots of history.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   
IMHO i think every country with nukes or a desire for them should be nuked. We need a reminder of what these things are capable of.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 10:40 PM
link   
There will be no "blowback" from a nation that no longer exists. It will serve as an example that persuing getting a rag tag nuclear missile program with a couple of missiles will be a death sentence for those nations.
The rest of the world will take notice and choose to exist instead of being annihilated. Iran will be nuked. The cards are set. The powers that be are too great and resistance is futile. The world has had just about enough of these peon two bit rouge nations thinking they are in the same league as the bigtimers.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SectionEight
 


Congrats man. You've chosen your username as carefully as I have. Welcome friend.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 10:58 PM
link   
I had just written this OP and searched for additional versions of the story ...and who is number two for it on google? Yes, ATS.

You beat me with 26 minutes, biggie. Deserved and well done.

I can only agree with you it's insane. But then again, so was the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, yet the general opinion is they saved thousand of lives and prolonged suffering, more than those who evaporated and those left to gradually perish.

I don't know maybe it's true. Anyway here is the OP I wrote:

If this doctrine gets implemented, it will be the go ahead for use of nuclear armoury at a scale that can only be inflating.

The irony, non-prolifiation of nuclear weapons are now to be defended with nuclear weapons.

They don't see other options, the authors of the manifesto says.

Where will this lead to?

All I can say, today I pity every young one of this world.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 11:14 PM
link   
This will just lead to a halt of proliferation. Whoever has them now is all that will ever have them.
When Iran gets a nuke, it will not be the United States that is threatened, it will be Europe. Iran does not and will never be allowed to get the capabillity of intercontinental ballistic missiles. They do have missiles that can reach Europe though.
The Nukes India and Pakistan have are regional. The same with Korea, although they do have capabillity of hitting the west coast mainland but their scant few are easily countered by anti missile defenses at this time.
Russia at this time would eagerly sign on to anything that withdraws our newly proposed anti missile defense systems from Europe. They will abandon Iran at the drop of a dime should we use that card. Russia is purposely playing up the Iran threat by openly selling them enriched uranium in the hopes that we will barter for not deploying our missile defense systems. Anyone who thinks Russia loves Iran is not in tune with the history of the world, national security issues prevail in all circumstances.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by khunmoon
 


I've seen some funky stuff in my time. I don't recall JFK's assassination. I was only 2. I recall a lot since then. LBJ was a liberal? BULL!!! It's still the "members that play". (MTP) Those in the hands of the Military Industrial Complex(MIC). That's why this stuff is dangerous. You're still being told what THEY want you to hear. The only difference now is that you don't have a balance, "yin to yang" that we had in the Cold war.

The Soviet Union(SU) could have and DID protest what America did. A balance. That's missing right now. America did the same. MAD was established. Beauty, keeps us all safe.

There's a missing element now though, it's all USA and there's not much that the world can do about it. That's pissing off a lot of people in the world. Lightly.

There's still a few that think the Cold War is still alive. It IS. The world is getting fed up with getting screwed. Sorry America, you're going to get people pissed off on this. Personally, can't blame them. Also you can't vote.

Hillary 2008, same as you've got for 40 years. She's a helluva politician though. Ferraro wishes her well. MY commentary.



[edit on 22-1-2008 by intrepid]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Well we never know, perhaps this is the way the morons leaders of the free world are planning to fix the economies of their nations.
:lil::lil:

YOu never know what these brilliant moron minds are concoting.




[edit on 21-1-2008 by marg6043]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


I was born, almost on the date, two years after the bombs over Japan, so my childhood memories are in a gloom of destruction and suffering. I saw the images from the kz-camps and the ruins of Germany. I must have been only 4 or 5 then, and I felt the grip of fear from the announcement of the cold war as well as the Korean war. That's what made my childhood, fear. And it was dull and grey.

When I was around 9 or 10 we went to Germany on vacation, and a metropolis like Hamburg was nothing but rubbles, for miles and miles ...11-12 years after the end of the war. In 1964 I recall there were still a lot of ruins standing in every major city we saw. I know the destruction wars bring, as I know of the fears to die young. Heck, I was aware of V-2s and the blitz when I was 5, and it gave me endless nightmares, where these cigar shaped things hauled down over our neighbourhood. I can still see those dreams like they were yesterday.

So you see, though I never really been in one, I know what war is, and it has made me hate it with of all my heart and fight it any way possible ever since.

I think the lack of empathy and the lack of understanding the suffering of destruction Americans can display with their "nuke'em" remarks, is due to the fact that you haven't had wars on your territory for.. how much, some 140 yrs. IOW, no living memory. And that's the big difference between Europe and America.

That memory will definately die out in the next 20 yrs in Europe too, and I think that's what they're preparing us for --when nobody remembers what the firestorms of Dresden, Hamburg and Bremen was like --or the blitz of London-- that of course you can use nukes.

This is one of the few instancies I'm grateful to be as old as I am ...and I once more examine my believe in reincarnation.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Help me out here, people, I don’t see why this is even news.

It has always been the doctrine of the US to keep the option of a first strike open.

The US policy is:

Biological: never
Chemical: only in retaliation, never first strike
Nuke: Retain the right to consider first strike option against any enemy

So why is this such a big deal?

Nothing but posturing, a response to Russia saying the same thing.

Just out of curiosity, why are you people not as up in arms about Russia running off at the mouth saying THE SAME EXACT THING ABOUT NUKE FIRST STRIKE?

Unless this is just an anti-US thread I would say that Russia’s remarks deserve at least a passing mention for relevance.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Ah, here we go, reported here on ATS just a few days ago

Russia Issues Nuke Warning

I expect to see you all there bashing Russia.


EDIT TO ADD:

reply to post by TrueAmerican
 



I hated to do it, but I had to add you to my foe list. I always agree with what you post so I needed the little red bar to remind that you are a hypocrite in the future. You can be seen on the above linked thread defending Russia's muscle flexing but are outraged when the US and NATO respond in kind?

Come on! it isn’t like that other thread was years or months or even weeks ago.

I despise this anti-nationalism just as much as I do nationalism.



[edit on 22-1-2008 by cavscout]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:14 AM
link   

posted by cavscout
Unless this is just an anti-US thread I would say that Russia’s remarks deserve at least a passing mention for relevance.


Well, it's not US, but Nato we are discussing here. It's a European pact with US participation, so I think it's more European politics that's on the agenda, and Nato has never before formulated any doctrine of first strike.

If you like, concerning US, I can give you my own personal total unfounded opinion on US and Nato, and that is, very soon, within a decade or so, the divide between Europe and US will be so wide --morally and ethical-- that a break will occur and Europe and US become oppositions and might end up in a war.

If that happens I hope the good old MAD doctrine will be in place and work.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by khunmoon
Well, it's not US, but Nato we are discussing here.


Why did you make me do this?

I have so much better things to do whith my time! No not really, I cant back that up.



Originally posted by TrueAmerican
What is happening imo is that the administration, realizing that it has little public support for the war, and even less troops to maintain a three or four front conventional war (Iran/Syria- remember their mutual defense pact), is now turning to their only other option- long range missiles.



Originally posted by intrepid
The Soviet Union(SU) could have and DID protest what America did. A balance. That's missing right now. America did the same. MAD was established. Beauty, keeps us all safe.

There's a missing element now though, it's all USA and there's not much that the world can do about it. That's pissing off a lot of people in the world. Lightly.

There's still a few that think the Cold War is still alive. It IS. The world is getting fed up with getting screwed. Sorry America, you're going to get people pissed off on this. Personally, can't blame them. Also you can't vote.

Hillary 2008, same as you've got for 40 years. She's a helluva politician though. Ferraro wishes her well. MY commentary.




Originally posted by khunmoon
I think the lack of empathy and the lack of understanding the suffering of destruction Americans can display with their "nuke'em" remarks, is due to the fact that you haven't had wars on your territory for.. how much, some 140 yrs.



And FYI: Japan took over and occupied part of Alaska in WWII


[edit on 22-1-2008 by cavscout]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by SectionEight
Iran will be nuked. The cards are set. The powers that be are too great and resistance is futile. The world has had just about enough of these peon two bit rouge nations thinking they are in the same league as the bigtimers.


Woah put down that copy of Rambo and take a look around eh?

You do realize that even IF you turn Iran into a parking lot, the fallout alone will contaminate huge swaths of land from Russia to Asia to Europe and yes even here in the US.

Do you really think that that will contain terrorism or stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons? If anything this type of cowboy mentality will dramatically increase the proliferation of weapons only those will be underground and spread out.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by biggie smalls
 


Did anyone else find this particularly interesting as a recommended decision-taking overhaul for NATO?


No role in decision-taking on Nato operations for alliance members who are not taking part in the operations.


I see. So, if you're not planning to participate in the dropping of nuclear bombs you have no say in the matter at all.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by SectionEight

The powers that be are too great and resistance is futile.


I feel like I am talking to Darth Vader here. Really now, you couldn’t do better then "resistance is futile?" Been watching many B science fiction movies lately?

Funny thing, I would wager that many of the British colonials said the same thing to the revolutionaries right before they sent the biggest empire the earth had ever seen home to lick their wounds.

This age will pass, the US will slide backward sooner or later.

Thing is, the more people we have with ideas like yours in the US, the faster our demise will come. You are helping the enemy here.

BTW, I want to congratulate you on not getting banned yet. I honestly thought you would last a week at most. Great job there, bud!


[edit on 22-1-2008 by cavscout]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join