Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

North Korea to be attacked; U.S. Nuclear first strike "likely" - Trustable info?

page: 5
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


Your assumptions that the US used nuclear weapons against Afghanistan and Iraq and just that, assumptions. There is absolutely no solid evidence that the US, or any country for that matter, used nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So, again, I say the US will NOT use nukes against North Korea in a first strike.




posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Ok, I'm just going to say this once.

Never underestimate your enemy.

NK seems unimportant, but nukes are not the only worry with a country that is capable of creating nuclear weapons. It only takes about a handful of secret operatives in major cities with a few vials of the kill-all virus to create a serious enough threat to make us listen to them. I hate to say it, but yeah, if NK stages an attack on any of our ships, our allies ships, or on SK, we probably will react a lot like this, with an instant attack, especially considering the plan appears to have been put in place since the Bush administration, and is simply waiting for the POTUS sign-off.

No, I don't think anyone of authority really wants to make that decision right now, but it might become what they see as the only option.

As someone said earlier, it's on the table, but everyone is diverting their eyes.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MasterRegal
 


blue 82's aka bunker busters do not have uranium in them. Pure TNT. www.globalsecurity.org...

Lotta confusion and lack of informative information.. The title alone gives the content of this thread away. I try to give ATS a high notation of notability especially on this side of the Forum. No disrespect. the alternative news thread should be just as it is. NOT tabloid speculation and wishy washy storyisms..


[edit on 27-5-2009 by Adrifter]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by MasterRegal
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


Your assumptions that the US used nuclear weapons against Afghanistan and Iraq and just that, assumptions. There is absolutely no solid evidence that the US, or any country for that matter, used nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So, again, I say the US will NOT use nukes against North Korea in a first strike.


You ought to do some research re: bunker buster bombs, which the U.S. not only admitted using, but bragged about.

Nuclear tipped, friend.
www.globalresearch.ca...
This is but one article-the info is out there and readily available.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


I'm sorry, but no where in that article did it state the US used nuclear weapons in Iraq or Afghanistan. Your claim that the US used such weapons in the opening days of the wars are unproven. No where in my claim did I say the US neither use or have conventional bunker buster, or nuclear tipped bunker busters. They do, we all know they do.

Again, your claims are unfounded.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Adrifter
reply to post by MasterRegal
 


blue 82's aka bunker busters do not have uranium in them. Pure TNT. www.globalsecurity.org...

Lotta confusion and lack of informative information.. The title alone gives the content of this thread away. I try to give ATS a high notation of notability especially on this side of the Forum. No disrespect. the alternative news thread should be just as it is. NOT tabloid speculation and wishy washy storyisms..


[edit on 27-5-2009 by Adrifter]


What does this have to do with my post?



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by MasterRegal
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


I'm sorry, but no where in that article did it state the US used nuclear weapons in Iraq or Afghanistan. Your claim that the US used such weapons in the opening days of the wars are unproven. No where in my claim did I say the US neither use or have conventional bunker buster, or nuclear tipped bunker busters. They do, we all know they do.

Again, your claims are unfounded.

Like I said, the info is out there and readily available. If you refuse to look at it, and refuse to connect the dots, I cant do much else for ya.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


You just cannot assume. You need facts to back up a claim like that. You have none. You are assuming actions in one event, while using that assumption to assume an action in another event. All the while, there is no facts. It's a very thin argument.

The US will not use nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike against the DPRK.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by MasterRegal]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Everyone is testing the waters, I was going to start a new topic,

But I really don't give a damn anymore.

Russia, Cuba agree to renew joint nuclear research
en.rian.ru...

The stage is set.
www.breitbart.com...

[edit on 053131p://bWednesday2009 by Stormdancer777]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by MasterRegal
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


You just cannot assume. You need facts to back up a claim like that. You have none. You are assuming actions in one event, while using that assumption to assume an action in another event. All the while, there is no facts. It's a very thin argument.

The US will not use nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike against the DPRK.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by MasterRegal]

As I said, if you refuse to read what's out there, and refuse to look below the surface, I can't do a thing for you.

Deny Ignorance.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

Originally posted by MasterRegal
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


You just cannot assume. You need facts to back up a claim like that. You have none. You are assuming actions in one event, while using that assumption to assume an action in another event. All the while, there is no facts. It's a very thin argument.

The US will not use nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike against the DPRK.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by MasterRegal]

As I said, if you refuse to read what's out there, and refuse to look below the surface, I can't do a thing for you.

Deny Ignorance.


Unfortunately ignorance runs rampant on this forum. Frankly, I've stated my opinion on this matter and see no need to continue. I feel confident that my logic, intellect, and knowledge of defense policy, foreign policy and Asia strengthens my opinion.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Durrrrr a micro micro micro nuke on the tip of a bunker buster is not at all equivalent to what 99.999% of all people are referring to when they say 'nuke.'

First of all, the politics of using a bunker buster are in no way at all comparable to the politics of using a real nuke. There is no comparison between the two. A comparison is beyond idiotic, there is no comparison to make.

Second, you can not "first strike" someone with bunker busters. Yes you can attack somebody first and thus it's a 'first strike' but it's not a "first strike." They aren't even as powerful as a 'tactical nuke.' There are even more powerful conventional bombs, just ones not specifically designed to penetrate.

A first strike with real, capital N Nukes on NK would be to(at the very least) obliterate all the artillery dug into mountains that would otherwise be pounding Seoul. Regular bunker busters would not get the job done fast enough. Tac nukes would not get the job done fast enough.

That said, the Chinese do not like what NK's nuke test means for Asian stock markets and investment in general. With their agreement, and probably yes Russia's too (wouldn't want them to be surprised by some nukes going off lest they hit their nuclear panic buttons), a serious nuclear first strike on NK is a very real possibility.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by 11andrew34]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
I think Kim Jong-Il will definitely use nukes, even if they're weak nukes compared to modern nukes (ICBM warheads). He's been devoting the entire countries budget to defense ever since he took power, at the expense of his people starving. As long as the soldiers are well fed, he cares not.

He has the type of megalomanic personality to spark off a war with an atomic bomb simply because he is getting old and wants to do it before he dies; wants to experience it before he dies. Perhaps he feels justified to get to play top General in a war. I mean .. he does consider that military HIS creation ...

It doesnt look good. At least China and Russia are not supporting N. K., although they wouldn't want to deal with us much either. It would be a stick situation for sure.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

Originally posted by MasterRegal
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic
 


Your assumptions that the US used nuclear weapons against Afghanistan and Iraq and just that, assumptions. There is absolutely no solid evidence that the US, or any country for that matter, used nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So, again, I say the US will NOT use nukes against North Korea in a first strike.


You ought to do some research re: bunker buster bombs, which the U.S. not only admitted using, but bragged about.

Nuclear tipped, friend.
www.globalresearch.ca...
This is but one article-the info is out there and readily available.


First of all that site global research is almost as bad as Arab Aljesera was in 2003. We have never ever used a nuclear bunker buster before, Period. They just made them. Nuclear tipped? Thats ridiculous. You must be thinking of depleted uranium witch is just that, A extremely hard metal that does not explode. The U.S. has stopped using the stuff and went with tungsten instead over the suspected health risk to all who are exposed to the dust after the uranium is smashed in one way or another. Its used because its hard and punches through armor.

Second while Hal Turner has given us some real info lately that the PTB don't want us to know and it may be a mistake. In this new news it says that subs will launch nuclear TLAMS, Tomahawks. We took every nuclear tomahawk out of our arsenal way back when we signed a intermediate weapons treaty with Russia.

No U.S. or Russian ships or subs have anything but long range ICBMs that are nuclear. Could bolth sides have fudged and some are on board, Yes. I doubt it though.
Why send a tomahawk that can be shot down when you can send a MIRV from a Trident D2 that they cant hit. The Trident can hit many targets at once or one target 10 times. They sure wont need B2s to do clean up after nukes are sent in regardless of Tomahawks or Tridents.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by CZBR51

North Korea to be attacked; U.S. Nuclear first strike "likely" - Trustable info?


turnerradionetwork.blogspot.com

Washington, DC (TRN) -- North Korea yesterday withdrew from the Armistice that halted the Korean War. Today, official Washington is abuzz with not so secret "Top Secret" plans for the United States to make a limited nuclear first strike to wipe out the North Korean threat in one fell swoop.

Russia has been alerted to "make plans" for radiation fallout in its eastern border area......
(visit the link for the full news article)



Nope, I wouldn't believe this one bit, it is in my opinion on the contrary of unbias information.

Considering that N.K. First strike is imminent, the United States won't be the bully this time.

N.K. Drops a nuke, well there may be friction and truth in the U.S. dropping a bomb that would make North Korea as hot as the suns surface.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by finemanm
 


the assumtion that
" First of all, the US will not use nuclear weapons against anyone unless there was a credible threat that that country was going to use nukes against us. " became untrue in 2002 when bush was banging on about the axis of evil much to the anyonce of russia at that time
please look at this link and bear in mind it was anounced back in 2002!

www.telegraph.co.uk...



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I was interested until I found out it's from Hal Turner's website.

You know the same guy who has repeatedly called for violence against Jews, Blacks, threatened Judges, etc...

www.adl.org...

I know... it's the ADL, but you can look up the quotes from other sources.

I would certainly hope that the U.S. is not planning a nuclear first strike on North Korea, but it could be possible. I'd like to see info from other sources, and not Mr. Turner.

However, Hal Turner is still a dirty racist and white supremacist. You can tell from reading his own words, or listening to his radio show. I am not embellishing or fabricating.

Here's a video/audio clip on youtube, of him chatting it up, about Obama and what his definition of a 'n**ger' is.



Another video of Hal Turner on CNN:



A few Hal Turner quotations (can be found at the ADL Link):



December 9, 2007: In response to a shooting at a training center dormitory for Christian missionaries, Turner wrote, "CRAZED JEW SHOOTS CHRISTIANS! KIKE WALKS INTO DENVER CHRISTIAN MISSION, STARTS SHOOTING. HUNT DOWN THIS FILTHY KIKE AND STICK HIM IN AN OVEN!"




November 13, 2007: "I advocate SPITTING ON JEWS when anyone sees them on the street. Let's all start spitting on jews [sic] immediately. I myself am doing it starting today. In fact, I think we ought to line up outside every local Synagogue every Saturday and spit on the jews [sic] who enter. Then spit on them again as they leave. If this behavior is good enough for jews [sic] in Israel to do to Christians, then it must be good enough for Christians to do to jews [sic]. Let's get it done."




October 2, 2007: "Jews love to complain about the 'Holocaust.' Let me tell you, there was no Holocaust in World War 2 -- but rest assured, there most certainly IS GOING TO BE a holocaust. I look forward to participating with zeal."


So, I think you get the picture. Needless to say, take everything this guy says with a grain of salt.

Logically speaking, it is possible for him to be telling the truth, just logically speaking, but unless you can back it up from another source I wouldn't believe a bit of it.

EDIT: I had a chance to read the Wired article. Yea, I think the U.S. and S. Korea would at least be preparing for war, as the North has been saber-rattling for some time now. Only makes sense.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by JipStix]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by CZBR51
 


The opening remarks in your OP made me think that "THEY" are reading our forum and making decisions based on what we speculate and discuss.

Geeze that is almost verbatim what I posted in a thread about this situation in the past days.

"Top Secret" and "US will take them out in One Fell Swoop."

Is it possible that they dont know anymore than us and are sourcing this site in planning and decission making? Why not we do have some of the most brillinat and intuitive people on the globe all here in one place...



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by antar
 


Dont know if "THEY" take decisions using ATS info but I really believe all "THEY" spread all over the world read the ATS site constantly.

:-) CZBR



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Is not directive 17,(Bush,2003)an open door for the USA to use
preemptive strikes in any form against any aggressor who has WMD's?
so if directive 17 is ever to be used,
I take it that they will not be using water pistols.
Scary stuff from a madman.
Such a directive like 17 is both selective and vague,
and all depends on who your are your friends are at the time.






top topics



 
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join