It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


United States has, unbeknownst to America, detonated Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 09:56 PM
Sent email to Ron Paul on this topic...

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 10:17 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 10:50 PM
I know. =)

but I posted it all the same, It would be interesting if one of them DID report - lol... but highly unlikely.

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:46 PM
reply to post by biochemky

whats that got to do with it. or foe that matter this.

and this

and this.

i think we are being lied to on lots of fronts divide and conquer so we dont know were to turn.
i am beginning to think the ptb want people to take sides.

why they go down the middle why wee are all argueing youtube videos and websites

zeitgiust was put together to influence in young minds for a new religion.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by onecon]

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:36 AM

Originally posted by DarkspARCS
I am emailing all Main Stream Media outlets with this info. so far I've sent this to the Associated Press and MSNBC. more to follow... Including any replies from them that I get...

send to RT they will even cover it maybe.

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:55 AM
We are NOT setting nukes off...... This is all bs and misinformation. But still is an interesting find. We use DU rounds, very effective against armor. The reports of high radiation are mainly from the gulf war when we murked a lot of Iraqi tanks and Sadaam or however you spell his name just left the destroyed tanks where they were destroyed which in turn slowly effected the public in Iraq. That is why you see all the birth defects in children in Iraq.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by Reign02]

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:01 AM
A fine thread Darksparcs

The level of detail and research you've done is first class...I've only just skimmed thru your posts on the first page, however I'm about to read each in full including all the links you provided

If this is all true, the repercussions will be....Just huge....Really huge...

Again, good job

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:03 AM
I call total BS... a massive load of roadapples. Any use of fissionable material would have been detected long ago. The only thing I am aware of is DU which was used in armor piercing shells.

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:11 AM
I really hope this isn't true.

Great job! S&F because i want confirmation on this. I did some checks on your links. The locum plan threads' source has a broken link... still reading through everything else now, so far no complaints.

Other then that, this is shocking news... if true.

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:21 AM
There is nothing here that subtantiates the actual use of nuclear weapons.

Tactical nukes and neutron bombs are two completely different weapons.

Tactical nukes are low yield battlefield nukes, they are extremely destructive like MOABs on steroids. The fission reaction creates sun like temperatures at ground zero and its produces an EMP. The blast wave is more powerful than a MOAB or daisycutter.

Neutron bombs on the other hand, are enhanced radiation weapons. They are designed to kill by a burst of radiation, without the destructive effects of conventional nuclear weapons. Neutron bombs don't incinerate people unless they are at ground zero.

The AGM-114N is a thermobaric weapon

If we had used nukes, there would of been all kinds of issues from fallout and especially from the EMP. The EMP would have caused kinds of problems. I was there in Iraq and we had zero issues that could be related to any kind of EMP.

I can't stress how widespread the effects of such weapons would be.

If a small group of people were incinerated by ionizing radiation or small areas were hit with ionizing radiation, I guarantee they were not nukes.

What I can say is isolated incidents like that are most likely the result of directed energy weapons, either microwaves or high energy lasers. If the people reported being blinded, but no bright flash is involved and they heard a thundercrack, it was high energy laser. If they saw and heard nothing but spontaneously combusted it was microwaves.

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:26 AM
Well having read the post I call BS, do you think every other country in the world that had a grude against the US would not have told the world just to get back at the USA.

Now as for the moab its as far from a nuclear bomb that a grenade is its just a matter for scale.

I do though belive that the moab could be turned into a nasty dirty bomb of course so that could be closer to the truth.

Neutron bombs there great idea tacticly but in practice any one close enough to get a lethal dose and die very quickly (mins not hours) would need to be close enough that they would be killed by the initial blast.

Outside of the inital blast area they could still get a lethal dose but there not going to die quick, personaly if I knew I had a lethal dose I would want to go out fighting.

There is nothing harder to fight than an enemy who has nothing to lose.

For the next point in my post I will clarify my postion first:

I don't support the wars and I feel we are there for all the wrong reason but I will support the troops there.

Ok so after that little disclaimer comes my point.

In a war you want to kill as many of the enemy as possible as quickly as possible, MOAB's, VMOAB's, depleted uranium rounds all other maner of nasty weapons are designed to kill the enemy with the least amount of causalties to your you can. so I am not against these weapons being used if it saves the lives of our troops who at the end of the day are there at the bidding of TPTB.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by jpmail]

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:41 AM
I find this story questionable as well. UN inspectors had free reign I thought to look for weapons of mass destruction and did not detect anything new. Sadam had uranium and weapons not completely disposed of from before the first Gulf war but I never heard about anything new being found. It seems like the UN inspectors could have discovered nuclear weapons being detonated if that had happened. Nothing new was found to my knowledge.

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:44 AM
reply to post by DarkspARCS

of course they'll use nuclear or neutron based weapon systems.

Why wouldnt they, since they have them at their disposal.

Would you rather have our troops just march towards the enemy like the good old days and be decimated by IED's?

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:48 AM
reply to post by WhiteDevil013

In the good old days, the other side wore uniforms and fought face to face on the battlefield.

They didn't hide behind women and children either.

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:51 AM

Originally posted by ugie1028
I really hope this isn't true.

Great job! S&F because i want confirmation on this. I did some checks on your links. The locum plan threads' source has a broken link... still reading through everything else now, so far no complaints.

Other then that, this is shocking news... if true.

The link through to the Locum plan is working for me... however, I will post the actual url instead to see if it will load for you then.


As you can see, The full text of the document has been preserved on a U.S. Marines forum (other Locum documents I'd come across all have been edited. This is the full text...)

The original Locum document has so far been EXTREMELY difficult to locate. Many articles that I've come across written by, or are about Locum have been removed. It seems that references posted online about Locum's Plan have for the most part been erased, with the exception of NewsMax, who left a reference to the Locum Plan document, with a date and time stamp, on their indexer but the actual webpage is gone.

The actual index reference however still substantiates that they at one time provided the document, which I'm sure the Marines then took and posted on the Leatherneck website... which was then - overlooked by folks looking to whipe the internet clean...

lol, oops....

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:59 AM
In referrence to those having trouble accepting the FACT that Tactical Thermobaric Nuclear Weapons are being used against targets in the Middle East - I ask you this simple question:

12 year Ali Abbas’ family was burned alive. He, himself, sustained bizarre non-contact heat burns across his torso and his forearms which were both incinerated. The village where this horrifying crime was committed was 30 miles from Baghdad. Ten members of Ali’s family turned into dust and the only evidence of this crime that we have is Ali’s burned body

What could it have possibly have been that VAPORIZED the 10 members of Ali Abbas' family?...

Any Ideas?

Remember, that same event that pulverized into dust those 10 people also burned Ali badly via a radiated flare burn, NOT a contact burn...

[edit on 27-3-2010 by DarkspARCS]

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 07:02 AM
reply to post by DarkspARCS

Explosively Powered Flux Compression Generator bombs can microwave people to death:

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 07:04 AM
reply to post by DarkspARCS

If you would have read my response you would have an idea of what caused it and why neutron bombs, thermobaric weapons and nukes are all very different weapons.

If that report has any truth in it, they were hit by a directed energy weapon.

[edit on 27/3/10 by MikeboydUS]

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 07:25 AM
"Tactical Thermobaric Nuclear Weapons" is not a thing. A weapon is one or the other. Thermobaric weapons are weapons in which the air is used as the oxidizer in a chemical explosion. A cloud of explosive material is dispersed into the air via a small explosion, and when that cloud mixes with oxygen in the air it is detonated. Because no oxidizer is mixed with the explosive in the warhead, more explosives can be packed into a smaller area.

Thermobaric weapons work on the same principal as a grain mill explosion. In those cases, flour builds up in the air and is ignited by a spark, creating a blast with a proportionally very powerful shock wave. Of course the weapons use more powerful explosives than flour, but the principal is the same.

Anyways, the key element of a thermobaric weapon is that the explosive warhead is blown apart before the actual offensive explosion is set off. All of the power comes from the ignition of the dispersed explosive. A nuclear weapon would be destroyed by a thermobaric blast, not detonated by one.

Thermobaric weapons also produce a substantial amount of heat. It's the heat and shock wave that kill in a thermobaric explosion, compared to most conventional anti-personnel weapons which rely on shrapnel for much of their killing power.

Look up a picture of the sheer size of some of the thermobaric bombs we have in our arsenal. Factor in the fact that thermobaric bombs are anywhere from 30% to 100% more powerful (depending on which source you listen to) than conventional bombs of similar size, and it's not hard to imagine people being vaporized by those blasts.

As for the Iraqi commander, I really can't say that's a reputable source. Is this one of the same Iraqi commanders who insisted there were "No Americans in Baghdad?"
I knew a guy who went to Iraq who said he saw insurgent RPG's wrapped in duct tape because the Iraqis thought it would "reflect the force fields on the American tanks."

Training videos show Iraqi troops having trouble with jumping jacks. You want to believe that those people have any idea what they're talking about, you go right ahead. As for the American captain who "verified" the claims, I think you'd be amazed at the bull crap some people will say when they're looking for attention.

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 08:30 AM
I appreciate the effort to collect the information from various sources, but I'm not buying it. We aren't the only ones that can detect the detonation of a nuclear device. The detonation of any kind of nuclear weapon and their associated after effects would have long since been known to the international community and there would have been a world wide backlash years ago, all for a marginal gain of destructive power with a so called 'micro nuke', for lack of a better term, in lieu of dropping a few more conventional bombs? I don't think it makes much logical sense.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in