The Seeds of Nuclear War - a scenario by Michel Chossudovsky, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times

Topic started on 22-2-2010 @ 08:55 AM by masqua

The following link contains a video by Michel Chossudovski, frequent editorialist to the the Global Research website.

YouTube Link

The impending military action against Iran by the combined forces of NATO, Israel and America seems to almost be a certainty these days.

What MC is talking about in his article is the use of bunker busters as tactical nuclear weapons.

This is what worries me to no end.

Fine... do what needs to be done to curtail what is seen by the west as as Iran developing nuclear weapons, but do it through conventional means. Nucear weapons used in close proximity to both Russian and China are a dangerous escalation, imo. Both of those countries ARE nuclear powers, as is Pakistan.

Once that Pandora's Box is opened, there is no closing it.

On top of that, NATO had better be assured of the facts before any military action is taken. We certainly don't need another charade like the invasion of Iraq based on the faulty premise of 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'.

Been down that road before.

edited to add YouTube video

[edit on 22/2/10 by masqua]

reply posted on 22-2-2010 @ 09:05 AM by thoughtsfull

I think even conventional weapons wll open pandoras box in this regard..

I personally think if this kicks off it will be conventional, with conventional responses, all the way upto the point someone starts to lose and then we shall see an escalation of weapons types being used.

If we can't find a way to close pandoras box that will go all the way up to the use of WMDs.

In the meanwhile all the little petty desputes between nations will kick off across the world as it becomes more and more unstable..

As the major powers get mired down by war the oportunist nations/groups will take their chances to air their issues, which will only make the whole situation worse..

lets just hope no one opens that particular box..

[edit on 22/2/10 by thoughtsfull]

reply posted on 22-2-2010 @ 09:09 AM by Raider of Truth

talked about to much in recent weeks.. clearly it's in the works and with the unveiling of a drone fleet and israeli gunships heading to the persian gulf it further escalates it as well as the fact that a russian general warned America of consequences should they attack Iran.

reply posted on 22-2-2010 @ 09:12 AM by chorizo4

reply to post by masqua

I wonder about the future. A new wave of DU particles circling the globe is troubling. Can we time this event, if it happens?

It's possible. If something goofy is going to happen I need to stock up on tobacco and cheap vodka. If the economy collapses the govt. will always provide you with a free plate of gruel, but not smokes and liquor.

reply posted on 22-2-2010 @ 09:16 AM by masqua

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
I think even conventional weapons wll open pandoras box in this regard..

I personally think if this kicks off it will be conventional, with conventional responses, all the way upto the point someone starts to lose and then we shall see an escalation of weapons types being used.

Agreed.

The time is soon coming, if it's not already here, that ANY kind of war conducted on a larger scale has the inherent danger of escalation. What's going on in Afghanistan right now pales in comparison to what might, or even will happen should Iran become a NATO target.

We have to consider the retaliation from Iran's allies in the world, because they do have them.

A conventional war could very well escalate into something nuclear... yes, but one in which Iran is attacked pre-emtively with nuclear bunker busters will, imho, lead us down that road much quicker.

Who stands to lose most, besides Iran, if the country was attacked?

reply posted on 22-2-2010 @ 11:00 AM by Monts

I remember atomic scientists moving the doomsday nuclear holocaust clock to 11:55 in 2007; 12:00 being nuclear war.

I think that the biggest potential for a disaster would be a failure in communication or accident; in the mid 90's Yeltsin almost pushed the red button when an unmarked Norwegian scientific rocket was thought to be an American missile.

Also, all the old soviet missile technology is starting to get old; who knows what some kind circuit breakdown or computer glitch could cause?

Stuff like that scares me.... But I really don't think (more hope I guess), that leaders wouldn't follow through with mutually assured destruction.

reply posted on 22-2-2010 @ 11:26 AM by thoughtsfull

reply to post by masqua

Agreed.. tho the reaction and speed of decent into the abyss will depend on the type of bunker buster used, and the fallout caused, physicaly and pschologically.

The psychological effect of the knolwedge another Nuke has been used on mother earth will have a devestating effect on society as a whole across the globe, no one hearing that news will not feel that WW3 is about to happen.

I'm trying to chase down info on the hard-point nukes I understand the UK was meant to be developing on behalf on the US to avoid Congressional oversight, tho I am sure they must have made a lot of headway!

I also hear that the new(ish) M4A trident II fuse means that they can meet D5 hard target requirements with minimal radioactive fallout, turning the Trident II into a hard-point nuke.

While if a nuke attack is carried out by Israel I am not sure they would have developed the tech on their own to be so surgical..

Therefore in my opinion if non hard-point nukes are used in the attack then the fallout will certainly speed us into an abyss, and a surgical strike with hard-point nukes can only point to a couple of nations being complicit in the attack even if they are carried out by Israel. So again speeding us into the abyss.

So I really feel no matter which way I approach this a non nuclear strike would start this off.

Coming back to the psychological impact that makes me feel a first stike would be conventional, I have to admit that I assume that an almost collective sigh of relief will take place if an attack in non nuclear (how sad is that)

I feel the psychological warfare we are being bombarded with in the MSM at the moment currently assumes the worst, a nuclear stirke, a world devestated, man wiped out.. If our worst fears on boths sides is a nuclear attack, then a non nuclear attack almost comes as a blessing (as awful as that sounds)

It will also present the protagonists and public with options and space to ramp down the tensions, which won't happen, but we will get a short term false sense of hope things won't get worse.

While the scenario I feel that will follow an attack is that we will give Iran the justification to move into territory from Iraq to Pakinstan as liberators to consolidate a power base. Iran can not do anything without a power base, and can not allow troops to be on their borders.. this has to be a first step.

Pandoras box will be opened, open hostility will be the norm as we carry on slipping into the abyss..

North Korea will kick off that it wants it's fair shake, Russia might go for Georgia, China might go for Arunachal Pradesh in India and all the other border desputes around the world will ignite.

No matter how it starts it's the opportunist nations that will keep fanning the flames as we slip further and further into the abyss.. to the point one of those losing resorting to WMDs of ever increasing levels of horror.

We stand on the edge of a cliffe.. I just hope those in the know understand there can be no winners in this.. but then again knowing how unbalanced society is right now I would not be suprised if some one thinks they can fly from that cliffe edge.

reply posted on 22-2-2010 @ 12:27 PM by masqua

Originally posted by thoughtsfull

The psychological effect of the knolwedge another Nuke has been used on mother earth will have a devestating effect on society as a whole across the globe, no one hearing that news will not feel that WW3 is about to happen.

Thank you for the detailed post, thoughtsfull. You have proved your username to be appropriate.

On the quoted portion I would like to add a common philosophy:

"If they do it, why can't we?"

On that notion, if nukes were used in a pre-emptive NATO attack on Iranian soil, it would give other countries in the 'nuclear familty' to do the same to their most hated adversaries; China on Taiwan, N Korea on S Korea, Russia on Georgia, Pakistan on India.

You're quite correct on the psychological dangers. Where one will use small bombs, the next will be tempted to bump up the ante and use larger ones to 'solve their problems'. Where one will use it on military targets, the next will see population reduction as their primary target.

It's all about a group of bullies being held back from being the first to lob a nuclear device in the new millenium. Once it's gone off, that psychological restraint is gone.

*shudder*

We stand on the edge of a cliffe.. I just hope those in the know understand there can be no winners in this.. but then again knowing how unbalanced society is right now I would not be suprised if some one thinks they can fly from that cliffe edge.

It's decision time, alright.

reply posted on 22-2-2010 @ 01:44 PM by mmiichael

Michel Chossudovsky died over 4 years ago. He was considered an over the top fruitcake in his day, often inventing paranoiac factoidal data that had no basis in reality.

reply posted on 22-2-2010 @ 02:03 PM by masqua

Originally posted by mmiichael

Michel Chossudovsky died over 4 years ago. He was considered an over the top fruitcake in his day, often inventing paranoiac factoidal data that had no basis in reality.

Are you sure you're not thinking of his father Evgeny Chossudovski?

Michel Chossudovsky is the son of the Jewish-Russian economist and UN-diplomat Evgeny Chossudovsky (15 August 1914 - 4 January 2006) and Rachel Chossudovsky. Throughout his UN career and until his death, Evgeny Chossudovsky expressed his firm support for the Palestinian cause.

en.wikipedia.org...

Here, Michel discusses the bank bailouts in 2009:

YouTube Link

Doesn't look dead to me.

The vid, btw, is related to the war effort today. Put an Iranian attack on top of the costs, and you have a huge increase in the American National debt.

[edit on 22/2/10 by masqua]

reply posted on 22-2-2010 @ 02:53 PM by masqua

Originally posted by mmiichael
He was considered an over the top fruitcake in his day, often inventing paranoiac factoidal data that had no basis in reality.

reply posted on 22-2-2010 @ 03:20 PM by masqua

On with the topic at hand:

Proposed nuclear tipped bunker busters. Link contains a video:

This animation depicts a proposed weapon with a one megaton yield. The funding for this weapon was cut in 2005 defense appropriations. However, the United States still has a B61-11 nuclear 'bunker buster' in its arsenal which has a 400 kiloton yield, which could still cause hundreds of thousands of deaths and spread radiation to other countries.

The site refers to an attack on Iran and relates how it could affect the lives of many millions in neighboring countries.

If what is shown in the video is true, then the use of conventional weaponry is much more effective.

[edit on 22/2/10 by masqua]

reply posted on 22-2-2010 @ 03:28 PM by The Alamo Ripper

dude were not going to war against iran.. all this is is saber rattling

reply posted on 22-2-2010 @ 03:32 PM by masqua

reply to post by The Alamo Ripper

I sincerely hope you're right, but I'm not so sure it won't happen. If it isn't a concerted NATO effort, then it could very well be Israel acting alone.

Conventional weapons, as mentioned before, would be scary enough, but nuclear weapons used in an attack would be madness indeed.

sp

[edit on 22/2/10 by masqua]

reply posted on 22-2-2010 @ 05:54 PM by masqua

Recent comments regarding an Israeli attack on Iran:

Positive words

Despite Israel’s conviction that an Iranian nuclear weapon represents a mortal threat, this view may have to be mitigated. Those entitled to fear Iran most are the Gulf states, who have no nuclear deterrent. Under present circumstances, an Israeli assault would open a Pandora’s box with aftershocks that the Obama administration is deeply reluctant to face. And when Washington is helpless, Israel has little room to dissent.

link

There likely are more clues to a 'peaceful' resolution to be found, but they must be hidden among the many recent;

Negative words

“Politically, it is prohibited in any way that Iran will have nuclear weapons”, said the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen during a press conference convened on Sunday evening only hours after his arrival to Israel. “Right now, diplomatic efforts continue,” he explained, but did not rule out military option, “The option to attack Iran is still on the table, but we’re not there yet.”

dover.idf.il...

The air force unveiled a new drone as wide as a Boeing 737 on Sunday, at the Tel Nof air base near Rehovot, marking a new stage in Israel’s long-range operational and intelligence capabilities.

The Israel Aerospace Industries-made Heron TP (dubbed “Eitan” by the air force) is one of the largest unmanned aerial vehicles in the world.

It can fly at medium-to-high altitudes for more than 20 hours, while carrying a variety of payloads and advanced equipment weighing hundreds of kilograms for thousands of kilometers.

The Heron TP is capable of reaching Iran.

www.jpost.com...

Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Yaalon says Israel might use force to prevent Iran from developing "nuclear weapons," a claim Iran vehemently rejects.

"Iran's plan will probably be stopped by a regime change or, if there is no other choice, by recourse to force to deprive Iran of its nuclear arms production capabilities," Yaalon told a security conference in Herzliya.

www.presstv.ir...§ionid=351020104

Joint missile-defence exercises were held with America in October, and a simulated biological attack is to be rehearsed this month. Despite all this, Mr Barak seemed to recognise the difficulty of curbing Iran’s nuclear programme last month when he told a closed meeting with members of parliament that the Qom site “cannot be destroyed through a conventional attack”.

www.economist.com...

Israelis point out that they have supported Mr. Obama as he has tried to deal with Iran through dialogue, and now through sanctions. They want him to know there is only one other approach should sanctions fail: military action.

www.theglobeandmail.com...

[edit on 22/2/10 by masqua]

reply posted on 22-2-2010 @ 06:29 PM by bugstomper

reply to post by masqua

GeeeZ already! They need new fuel sources utilizing new technolgies that don't use oil!

reply posted on 22-2-2010 @ 06:48 PM by mmiichael

[

Originally posted by masqua

Having addressed the obvious mistake you have made on his death, I would also like to point out that you have slandered the father without any more evidence being presented.

I would, because of that, ask that you provide some links attesting to the absense of credibility in both the father and the son, or I shall consider your post to be nothing but a personal opinion based on the father's support of the Palestinian cause.

It pains me to note the blanket of doubt now thrown over upon the person of Michel Chossudovsky (and also the topic of this thread) merely over a personal unfounded and mistaken opinion you yourself hold.

Guilty as charged. My error. It didn't occur to me there were two related political thinkers with the name Chussodovsky.

I studied Political Science here in Canada but have maintained a longstanding relationship with many active faculty members. My view are shaped in great part by their more knowledgeable opinions and observations.

Michel Chussodovsky's views I have serious issues with. Though an expert on macroeconomics his attempts to impose a Chomsky political critique on the Canadian government is unwarranted. The highly socialistic Canadian government does not operate like it's counterpart in the US as Chussodovsky consistently neglects to differentiate their goals. Canada is largely an immigrant country with a foreign policy that is unusually tolerant and non-interventionist. It is unreasonable to apply a maligning Big Government brush to it.

I am expressing personal opinions of course. Mea Culpa.

reply posted on 22-2-2010 @ 06:58 PM by masqua

reply to post by mmiichael

Thanks, much appreciated.

It reflects character to admit to a mistaken identity.

That said, in my previous post, I posted links (suggesting) much recent sabre-rattling regarding the Iranian drive to nuclear power and a suspected ambition to create nuclear weapons as well.

How true the suspicion proves to be will never be known if the sites where the processing is being done become radioactive (through the use of nuclear weapons in an attack).

edit for clarity

[edit on 22/2/10 by masqua]

reply posted on 25-2-2010 @ 09:23 AM by thoughtsfull

reply to post by masqua

I to shudder a the thought of what maybe.. and what we are being pushed towards.. Tho the psychological barrier in using Nuclear weapons is in my opinion a really major obstacle to overcome..

The justification needed to use such weapons would have to be equal to or greater than the psychological damage using them causes..

Even with a nuclear Iran the threat in my opinion is still not enough to balance out the the global proportions of the backlash.

Hence my assertion that they would use tactical conventional weapons first, and from there it will build.

The other is the type of weapons used, if you used the nuclear tipped bunker buster what level of redundnacy would you need.. in the Dam Busters raid it was 6 to 1..

If you have 10 targets using a redundancy of 3 to 1 that would mean 30 nuclear tipped bunker busters... and I would assume the process would be to detonate the weapon on any downed aircraft.. So I see it as a very very very bad idea full of some really nast risk taking..

Unless someone wants to start a nuclear war 9which I pray they don't) then I can't find an alternative strategy that entails the use of nuclear weapons, not to begin with anyway