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: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by lifestudent
 


I hadnt noticed that.

Does sort of fall in line with common coalition thinking. "If yer aint with us, yer aginst us!"

[edit on 22-1-2008 by cavscout]




posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 02:25 AM
link   
I think cavscout's analysis is correct, this is just a restatement of existing policy, issued in response to the recent Russian statement.

The US has never had a no first use policy, and has always embraced the doctrine of "preemptive" nuclear strikes - a position I'd be willing to bet not many of it's citizens know about.

In fact the NATO plan for defending Western Europe had us going nuclear in theater as soon as the Russian tanks started streaming through the Fulda gap


Speaking of which, why does NATO even still exist?
With the demise of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, it has served it's purpose and should have been disbanded back in 1991.

It's time for the US to return to it's shores and for the EU to step up and replace NATO with a unified EU military command.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
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?


When the US and NATO respond in kind? Huh? Where have you been for last however many years it has been since Bush started this preemptive crap? You act like the Russians started this, and that I should be arguing from that vantage point. But fortunately, we have places like ATS to come to and keep up with these things.

I thought preemption strategy was old news by now. Well I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the soviets are responding to, not instigating, a threat. And this time, to the worst of all threats: Secret meetings being held to actually discuss the viability of nuclear first strikes on Iran via Israel, like they're really going to do it. Friggin lunacy. Nuke strikes on Iran despite our own National Intelligence Estimate that states that Iran ceased its attempts to develop nuclear weapons back in 2002-2003? Where is the reasoning here?

If you subscribe to that, then I am happy to remain on your foes list. But in that case I will think so little of you that I will not even dignify that friggin madness with putting you on my foes list. So there.

"Preemption" in Iraq and Afghan has resulted in over 1,000,000 people losing their lives, and two sovereign countries in chaos and civil war, just the way the NWO likes it. They get their population reduction and laugh all the way to the military-industrial bank.

A preemptive nuclear first is not a key option. It's their only option, if they are that hell bent on Iran's destruction for no good reason. Sheer lunacy if you ask me. But ok, I'm a hypocrite. :shk:



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 04:11 AM
link   
Call me crazy, but screw North Korea and screw Iran. I say, bomb the[Mod Edit] out of them. Why should they be allowed to, time and time again, flip us the bird without any action from us or NATO?

They continue to get closer and closer to having nuclear weapons. If we wait now, the world may be over just in time for the Mian calender to end.

I say, we dropped the bomb on Japan to stop a war and we should drop the bomb on them to save the world.

Like the old saying goes: You have to spend money to make money.

-Translation: Boom.






[Mod Edit: Please see ABOUT ATS: Vulgarity and The Automatic ATS Censors Thank you - Jak

[edit on 22/1/08 by JAK]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Johnny Sasaki
 


Simply amazing.. I never thought you could find a parallel to road rage in world politics, but there it is.

Dude.. pull over before you cause an accident.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:15 AM
link   
I get the feeling that we, as the Western Civilisation are getting to a point, like a cross roads in human evolution where we feel that we will soon have to completely eliminate any potential current and future threat from the face of the earth, to enable western society to survive and prosper like it is now.

Yes, its harsh, and cruel, but necessary and in a way it is the law of the jungle. He who is stronger, or more technically or militarilly evolved shall take out all opposition now for a future of peace.

I think this will occur, a few leaders will do it and take the fall afterwards so that the West can continue to grow without opposition or threat of danger.

many will disagree with this point of view, but the truth aint always nice.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 06:17 AM
link   
The backers of this proposal had better be prepared to nuke themselves.

The masses would immediately call to arms against their own government if they knew they had just launched a pre-emptive nuclear strike against someone.

Hence, if the government hopes to get away with one, they had better be willing to nuke their own territory, cause I can't see any less than 50% of the countries citizens ransacking every federal building in sight after an event like that.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 07:24 AM
link   
OFF TOPIC...


Originally posted by cavscout
And FYI: Japan took over and occupied part of Alaska in WWII


Took over and occupied part of the Aleutian Islands, not mainland Alaska.

Not quite the same is it?

Thats on a par with saying that there was an occupation of Britain when the Nazi's took the channel islands.

ON TOPIC...

This is the kind of lunatic thinking that may just spoil your breakfast in a "can't eat my pop-tarts I've just been vapourised" kind of way.

I mean...what are these people thinking? Nuclear first strike.... someone would need to have some major sized testicles to order that because I can't think of a better incentive for some lunatic to look to develop nukes and take out a few Western cities than having one dropped on part of their country.

It reminds me of the thinking that led to my thread here...

Its like watching a tennis match, and one side is suprised that the ball is coming back

Mind you, this doctorine has been written with the all-new spangly missile shield in mind...not that its an offensive weapon mind...oh no, not unless you have few nukes in your arsenal as a deterrent against agression and the country with 10,000 warheads and a missile shield attacks you....



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Hmmm, I don't see he population of the US rising up if Iran was nuked. I don't see it at all. The sad reality is with a little rhetoric and a reminder of the Iran Hostage Crisis and "us 'mericans will show dem ferigners what's what."

Sad but true. But the common man doesn't recieve opinions from a diverse source. They take the spoon feeding and ideas that appeal to the base ideology lock, stock and barrel. A perfect example is the Ron Paul campaign.

Ron Paul would win by a landslide with the internet crowd just from stating "truth, justice and the constitutionally American way". However the internet crowd is a very small demographic and his staunchest supporters are not of voting age. Not to say that all supporters can not vote, just that a large majority of them can not. I came to that realisation after reading his very own website and one of the emails quoted was from a 16 year old girl.

But this is not a RP debate. The reality of NATO's pre-emptive strike stance is frightening. Even worse is the provision of with us or no voting power. This solves the issue of both France and Germany who did not participate in the coalition post-9/11 despite the UK and US calling on the old NATO mantra of an attack on one is an attack on all.

As to the question of a nuclear stike being preferable to a prolonged ground war with Iran/NK/fill-in-the-blank....a very tough call that should not be made lightly. Unfortunately a first stike would be better than a retalitory strike as far as the people of Europe and Isreal are concerned. As to what makes them prefered to the people of the Middle East is the age old tribalism of the people in my cave are better than the people in your cave and therefore must be protected at all costs.


Strip off all the political mumbo-jumbo and it is the old "my right to happiness supercedes your right to exist." It is of course most unfortunate. I wish the way of the world was not that way. Sad, but true.



[edit on 22-1-2008 by Ahabstar]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Yea, I agree this is just a response to Russia's recent announcement.

If we hit Iran, it's gonna be with something new.

We're working on a program known as "Conventional Prompt Global Strike."

The timetable for this has some limited capability ready for 1st quarter of 2008. We're readying a hypervelocity bunker buster. This consists of a MASSIVE DU penetrator that will be travleing about 13,000 mph.

Hypervelocity munitions is the future of warfare for America.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 07:52 AM
link   

...someone would need to have some major sized testicles to order that because...



I have pretty large testicles. If you want me to 'flip the switch, turn the key, press the button', I will gladly do the honors.

Plus, the chances are that I will be in some deep underground base inside a mountain whilst I'm doing it (like Norad), so I will have no worries from the opposing dart.


So if you think about it, no large testicals are required for the task anyway. They probably don't even have to worry about the nuclear winter that followed. We're the ones that get the shaft......

....yay.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 08:06 AM
link   
I guess this is all about chastising the countries that are not living up to their NATO membership by sending very small contingents of troops to Afghanistan or not at all. The leaders of the world have gone off the deep end when it comes to threating nukes. From all the prophecy's I have heard regarding the future war is that it will be limited to a degree. The ones I have heard about England are not good at all. Something to do with the nuke plants there in the north and a major attack on London. Russia tosses a few nukes at the U.S.. France nukes Russia to help out the U.S. and then Russia wipes out France. U.S. puts the Russians in there place with a few well placed nukes. Then the Anti-Christ stops the war. Just some of the crazy things that I have heard over the years.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by biggie smalls
 


As I said before, Russia is backing Iran.

Iran hails new delivery of nuclear fuel from Russia


"The fifth load of nuclear fuel arrived at the Bushehr plant on Tuesday morning," said a statement from the Organisation for Production and Development of Nuclear Energy quoted by the news agency.

The delivery brings the nuclear fuel supplied by Russia so far to 55 tons or two-thirds of the total order of 82 tons, IRNA said.


I want to point out nowhere does it say Iran is producing nuclear weapons. They need nuclear fuel to start their reactors. DING DING DING DING!


Late last month, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the Bushehr reactor would be working at 50 percent capacity by this summer.

But the Russian constructors insist the 1,000-megawatt plant will not go on line until the end of the year.




Do we really want to see World War 3? Is that really on you anti-East people's minds?

You can be the first to sign up. I can't imagine why you aren't already suicide bombing places like the Middle East? Take the fight to them right?



And of course as the OP article mentioned:


The five veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany were due to meet in Berlin later on Tuesday to discuss US calls for a third round of sanctions.

The Western powers fear that Iran's nuclear programme is cover for a drive to develop a bomb, a charge Tehran strongly denies.


No more blood for oil! Er...Wrong war my bad. What's the new slogan the kids are chanting these days? Oh yeah...No more blood for nukes!



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Main points....
Europe must be protected from rogue nations with nuclear missiles now and in the future. It is essential to the world economy. Either deploy a missile shield or remove any rouge nations abillity to have nuclear power.

Russia wants the missile shield removed from Europe at all costs.

US puts missile shield in Europe anyway, strong bargaining chip vs Russia.

Russia counters by giving Iran nuclear materials, strong bargaining chip vs the West. This essentially ensures Iran's destruction and Russia getting what they want. Iran is pretty stupid wouldn't you say? They get nothing but the shaft and do not even realize it. The carrot on the end of the stick is a nuclear weapon for them.

France has no more power in millitary Nato decisions, a necessary check to Russia. France and Germany can no longer stall Nato response to a pre emptive stike on Russia. MAD is restored.

The stage is set. US will remove missile shield, Russia will sit back and do nothing as US destroys Iran. Europe is safe from attack or being held ransom in the future.

This pre-emptive policy is to warn Russia to not take advantage of the situation and invade eastern Europe as the Iran war unfolds. The West can monitor all Russian movements and pre-emptively strike if the Russians make hostile moves.

If China gets squirmish we can bargain to take away sales of navy destroyers to Tawain.

In global politics, the bargaining chips are laid out years in advance. Like a game of chess. The US will be allowed to take out Iran and everyone else will also get what they want too.

As far as the use of actual nuclear weapons on Iran, they would probably be small scale strategic weapons not city annihilating hydrogen bombs.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Absolutely amazing

Iran gets glassed


oil jumps to $1000 a barrel cause , well no one in the ME is pumping it anymore because of all the radiation

fuel in the USA hits $50 a gallon - for the 3 weeks fuel that is left - then - nothing.


www.ucsusa.org...

that is 1 small weapon predeicted fallout tract after 48 hours - what will the US do when pakistan and India start responding in kind when radiation clouds start poisoning there nationals? they will defend them - and with pandor`a`s box opened - the 5th fleet will be gone as will the US army in Iraq (and most of Iraq as well and likely israel) - who will then enact the samson option and nuke


europe.


you do know that Israel has a nuclear strike option for europe don`t you? Germany is the primary target - Israel governement will never forgive them.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by cavscout
 


Russian policy is
Bio : allways:
Chemical: tactical
Nuclear : allways

the US chemical weapon (1) `big eye` was old and really wasn`t that great anyway - the west has allways relied on atomic(s) whereas russia has diversified - there biological programme is damn scary - ebola-pox (ebola chimera`d with smallpox for airboure ebola) is the present mix for use on ICBM`s - and that was 10 years ago.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   
I read the article rather carefully and I don't think the manifesto is directed against Iran as far as the current status quo goes. It's more a reminder of the fact that if indeed there is evidence that a working weapon is created and paired with a delivery system (a long range missile), such option is on the table. But that has been the understanding for some time now. So it's more political than military in nature.

As the technicality of the strike goes, I think if this dread will ever come to be, a lot of effort will go into minimizing the fallout. One option that is theoretically possible is the old concept of a neutron bomb, which produces limited and short-lived fallout yet is capable of penetrating large amounts of material with it's neutron flux. I can't calculate right now if it's possible to denonate a fission bomb hidden in a bunker, by these means, but such calculation is readily doable with right tools. If such detonation happens, by virtue of the bunker being deep in the ground, the explosion will in fact be contained, and massive underground contamination will preclude any recovery or reuse of facility, permanently.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Man, the more I think about this, the more the world just seems like a game of Nuclear Risk to those in command.

Risk, for those that don't know, is a relatively simple board game where you try to conquer the world.

Human life just has no meaning anymore to them, it is all just about the money. If life means that little in comparison to money, then their lives should mean nothing as well to the manipulated. I think this is where a critical change needs to be affected in the people. They will use you, abuse you, and kill you. All for money. No different than the merciless robber on the street who just wants that next crack fix bad enough for him to kill someone needlessly to get it. That simple. Fair is fair, right?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
PLEASE NOTE THAT I AM IN NO WAY SUPPORTING AN ATACK ON IRAN WITH THE BELOW STATEMENTS, JUST TRYING TO INJECT SOME FACTS.




Originally posted by Harlequin
oil jumps to $1000 a barrel cause , well no one in the ME is pumping it anymore because of all the radiation


The radiation from SEVERAL large nukes would still have no effect on those nations west of Iran and little effect (with almost no lasting effect) in those to the east.


fuel in the USA hits $50 a gallon - for the 3 weeks fuel that is left - then - nothing.


Remember that we get most of our oil from the Americas. We also produce a crap load ourselves. It will not vanish, but you are right that it will become a luxury. I don’t think we will see $50 per barrel, but we may be forced to start riding bikes and walking more as much of what do have would be stored for military use.



that is 1 small weapon predeicted fallout tract after 48 hours - what will the US do when pakistan and India start responding in kind when radiation clouds start poisoning there nationals


I think you ar3e overreacting about the effects of a single nuke here. Educate yourself about the effects of nuclear weapons and you will find that after 72 hours MOST of that radiation will be gone. The majority of isotopes released from US weapons have half lives of less than 6 hours.
Also, the way we figure out radiological danger is in rads per hour. Most of those areas down wind will receive a warning and have their citizens partially protected. Even staying indoors after a nuke attack for a few days will SIGNIFICANTLY lower your exposure and will keep you safe, provided you are not within close distance to the blast. I would bet an entire paycheck that there would be no deaths outside of Iran for at least 20 years that you could link to a single blast in the center of Iran.


[edit on 22-1-2008 by cavscout]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
Educate yourself about the effects of nuclear weapons and you will find that after 72 hours MOST of that radiation will be gone. The majority of isotopes released from US weapons have half lives of less than 6 hours.


The fundamental question here if this is to be an air blast or surface explosion. It's night and day.

I doubt that the West will move to destroy any population centers in the ME. That's unnecessary and unpopular to the highest degree. So the clean air blast ain't gonna happen.

Hence, we come back to the "nuclear penetrator" scenario (since it is to be used against hardened military targets) and that can well lead to large amounts of activated soil to be ejected into the atmosphere. And that stuff is nasty.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join