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.

 

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

page: 3
66
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   
OK...I just found the answer to all the questions...

It may or may not have been a Neutron bomb, but one weapon deployed was bunker buster B61-11. Why is it that the "Bunker Buster" is technically known as:

the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator



I submit to you, for your attention, direct from the FAS website, the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator


“Bunker Busters”: Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator
Issues, FY2005-FY2007

Summary

Earth penetrator weapons, often called “bunker busters,” burrow into the ground
some tens of feet before detonating, greatly increasing their ability to destroy buried
targets. The United States has several types of conventional earth penetrators. The
current U.S. nuclear earth penetrator, the B61-11 bomb, cannot penetrate certain
types of terrain in which hardened underground facilities may be located, so the Air
Force and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) are studying a more
effective penetrator, the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP).

The United States has one type of nuclear earth penetrator, the B61-11 bomb,
which was accepted into the stockpile in September 2001.1

To address some technical issues that have arisen in the RNEP debates, the Bob
Stump National Defense Authorization Act for FY2003, P.L. 107-314, Section 1033,
called for a National Academy of Sciences report on effects of nuclear and
conventional earth penetrator weapons (EPWs). The report, released in April 2005,
had nine key conclusions: (1) many high-value buried facilities can be held at risk by
nuclear but not conventional EPWs; (2) penetration to a depth of 3 meters captures
most effects of EPWs on buried targets; deeper penetration puts the weapon at greater
risk; (3) EPWs cannot penetrate deeply enough to contain nuclear weapon effects
fully; (4) casualties from a nuclear weapon burst at shallow depth or on the surface
are essentially the same; (5) detonating a nuclear weapon at shallow depth increases
the energy transmitted to a buried target, permitting a reduction in yield by a factor
of 15 to 25; (6) attacks using nuclear EPWs near urban areas could produce
thousands to over a million casualties, or hundreds to several hundred thousand for
attacks in rural areas; (7) a nuclear EPW could reduce civilian casualties in an urban
area by a factor of 2 to 10 compared to a surface-burst weapon with 25 times the
yield; (8) a nuclear weapon would have to detonate within a chamber where chemical
or biological agents were stored to destroy the agents; the same is true of nonnuclear
“thermobaric” bombs, which generate high heat and pressure; and (9) in a nuclear
attack on a chemical weapon facility, nuclear effects would probably kill many more
civilians than would the released chemical agent, while a nuclear attack on a biological facility could kill similar numbers of civilians from nuclear effects and released biological agents, depending on weapon yield and amount of agent.5


THIS IS THE SMOKING GUN - This is the very Nuclear Weapon that was "accepted into the stockpile in September 2001"...

on what date again?....

"September 2001"

So this was NOT a thermobaric weapon, BUT AN ADMITTED THERMONUCLEAR DEVICE THAT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED AS HAVING THE POTENTIAL OF KILLING MILLIONS...


attacks using nuclear EPWs near urban areas could produce
thousands to over a million casualties, or hundreds to several hundred thousand for
attacks in rural areas


I rest this case gentlemen....




posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   
When they turned to "dust" it just probably meant that they got blown the F up. Kind of like a metaphor. We use standard bombs and missiles in Iraq, I have been to and guarded an ammo dump and there is nothing special or unusual there.
And I was at the biggest base in Iraq, Balad or JBB which ever you prefer

Propaganda and misinformation



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   
In the late 80s and 90s I flew nukes all over the place, and we do not have nutron bombs. I also flew Blu-82 and MOABs and they are just really really big conventional bombs. The main roll of these bombs were not really tactical other than to clear mine fields.

Our smallest nuke is the 155mm tactical nuke which I spent a year before DS cleaning them out of places as pat of a START treaty, so these were not available either or I would have flown them.

Nukes are a strategic weapon and so were not needed in the least or have a purpose in that war not to mention that the US conventional weaponry was already an overkill.



[edit on 27-3-2010 by Xtrozero]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   
M1 Abrams fires a 120mm depleted uranium round.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Perhaps this statement is naive and I'm missing something, but aren't you in essence saying that the United States detonated "nuclear-type" weapons with the potential to kill millions of people.....

....yet millions of people haven't been killed? While I don't argue that a disgusting amount of innocent lives have been lost, and that it's tragic, but how does one detonate a bomb capable of killing millions without actually killing millions?

Does it sound at all possible that the US has been doing this for years and yet we have heard nothing about the tens of thousands that would have been killed in one shot?

Further, don't you think there would be some kind of fallout involved from such a detonation and that people would still be dropping like flies in Iraq despite there no longer being a military offensive in Iraq?



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarkspARCS
THIS IS THE SMOKING GUN - This is the very Nuclear Weapon that was "accepted into the stockpile in September 2001"...


I disagree. At best, its merely circumstantial evidence. There's no proof that this specific weapon was used. Additionally, a bunker busting nuclear weapon probably is likely going to produce a significant amount of radioactive fallout, which, again, runs into that question of why has there been no international backlash from Russia, China, etc, over their supposed usage.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
After reading facts from both sides i'm making my opinion based on what i believe and what i do know.

As far as DU goes, that's been long known. It is very sad the affect it has on people but that's warfare for ya.

Now about all the different bombs they've set off, well unless you're the guy who pushed the button don't go calling it B.S because of what you did in the past or what military knowledge you have.

Its called war, and its a war the whole world was forced to watch. The US control it and that's that. What the military is doing over there will never be truly known unless you were there and you saw it.

I keep an open mind and wouldn't be shocked at all if the US used any kind of bombs.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   
A Depleted Uranium bomb isn't the same as a real nuclear weapon. A DU Bomb would only be a Dirty Bomb. Conventional explosives used to spread radioactive material over a large area. It's more of a terrorist weapon. Adding DU to a bomb doesn't increase the explosive power.

A DU bomb is designed to kill as many people as it can in a totally indiscriminate way with a persistent and lingering death. Think of Chernobyl on steroids.

The US wouldn't use a DU bomb in Iraq since we need to have our own people on the ground in order to keep the oil flowing.

Depleted Uranium is exactly that. It's depleted. It CAN'T blow up in the same way as a nuclear bomb. Nuclear Bombs detonate out of critical mass and an out of control chain reaction. They use ENRICHED uranium to make bombs, not depleted.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by LazyGuy]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:59 AM
link   
"Red Mercury" is one of the many clues that this story is a fabrication. "Red Mercury" was a hoax invented by the BBC to investigate the black market nuclear trade. The OP does not understand what depleted uranium is. The development of the "neutron bomb" was terminated. (The proof of this is that Iran would not be acting so aggressively if they were not certain of this. The neutron bomb was conceived precisely to kill Iranians while leaving the oil infrastructure intact.) The OP should reflect on the dictum: "less is more."



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I'm calling BS on this one as well. They DID use plenty of uranium tipped missiles in both Gulf Wars. Uranium tipped is NOT a nuclear bomb - it's simply a conventional weapon with a hard tipped end to get through concrete and other barriers.

Just because there is a large explosion producing a mushroom shape cloud, doesn't mean it's nuclear. Have you ever seen a flour plant or a mustard powder plant blow up? The effect is much the same.

With the sheer number of people in Baghdad (both Americans and Iraqi) someone would have come forward before now to talk about this.

Also, a nuclear explosion shows up on earthquake detection equipment, and some geologist would have come forward to say there was a possibility of a nuclear explosion had one occurred, just like they did when NK exploded its two bombs.

There are too many people to potentially silence, and the US Government intelligence services just ain't that good.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
A very interesting Thread Thanks.

I am still checking some of the links and validity. I also feel some of the issue could be DU, however the possibilty is large, as the US is known to have wanted to try and test new "exotic" weapons in theatre in Iraq.

It seems the USA also used WMD in Korea and kept it queit. Ther is alot of Scientific, documentary and witness testimonies.

I have collated the best into a new thread, and I am sure it backs up this threads thrust, an compelling read and Documentary:

USA Used WMD in Korea Research & Testimonies

Kind Regards,

Elf



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Nuclear weapons have the mindset of a huge blast followed by a large mushroom cloud. Is it not possible to use "atomics" in other manners, that don't look like a traditional nuclear blast? I am sure as the poster mentions, that other atomic tech beyond classic 1945 A-bombs has been developed and used.
This is not a surprise, depleted uranium weaponry is "atomic" in nature, and we know about that.



[edit on 27-3-2010 by Blue_Jay33]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Yeah, I am going to have to wait on the fence here with the skeptics.

The allegations are so disturbing and sensational that it is very important to actually prove these events are true or false.

If they are using these weapons, the cover up is immense and extremely well done. However, I am afraid that this is most likely all sensationalist speculation based on misunderstanding old documents.

Time will tell.

I will keep my eyes peeled.

Until then, I will remain highly skeptical of such controversial news.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

This is not a surprise, depleted uranium weaponry is "atomic" in nature, and we know about that.




Yeah but I could say that about anything literally.

All objects in the Universe are "atomic" in nature, essentially. Even the ice cream I am about to eat, is atomic in it's nature.

Sorry to nitpick, just showing the misunderstanding in your statement.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
First, I'd like to mention the fact that I am a disabled American paratrooper veteran, haven been sickened by depleted uranium. I got cancer from the use of depleted uranium, as have many others. Depleted uranium is a very hard substance and therefore used as both armor and armor piercing munitions. I know of absolutely no "nuclear" munitions that were used in either Iraq or Afghanistan, both countries that I am very familiar with. Although depleted uranium is used extensively through-out most military operations, I have not experienced any "nuclear" weapons in the field, at all.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I think all the radiation from the use of DU weapons (which is already bad enough! but the military denies it has any impact on human health
) is just a cover for other more advanced tactical nuclear weapons being used.


Hiroshima and Nagasaki had very crude bombs dropped on them that only resulted in about 1% of the radioactive material being turned into energy. The rest was sent flying high above the cities and contributed to elevated background radiation.

If you detonated greater amounts of the radioactive material, even just 80%, and were working with a smaller amount of material and a different reaction as well (fusion only, for example), the amount of radiation left over could be little to none. There are already theoretical mechanisms to push gamma and beta radiation down while maximizing the amount of alpha radiation produced, which does not travel far or have much penetrating power.

With the amount of time and money spent on nuke research in the past 70 years or so, I can't imagine how naive people must be to think we still have 1940's era technology here. And I can't imagine how naive people would have to be, to think the military would not lie to them about such an extremely useful but "impossible" (yeah, right) weapon.

How many times do they have to lie to you before you catch on to the fact that they do it on purpose for military strategy? The book "The Art of War" is ancient and even it tells you to lie and constantly deceive your opponents, which may even include the very population that you are supposed to be representing in situations like these. Everybody enjoys their head being in the ground better.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


The military does not deny that DU is dangerous or has adverse affects on human health. In the Army, all soldiers have to go through courses on just how dangerous the substance actually is. Also, the Army has admitted that this is the reason I got cancer, as well as many others. I actually have paperwork from the Army, admitting that my sickness is the result of DU. They make no claims that it is safe and they know full well how dangerous it actually is.

If the military is detonating nuclear weapons in either Iraq or Afghanistan, then they sure have been very successful at keeping the soldiers and locals from finding out about it. I'm not saying that I know for a fact that they aren't being used, rather, I'm saying that I have not experienced it happening and I think it would be hard to keep secret from people who are over there, including the locals. I think it is extremely improbable and highly unlikely. Neither I, or any of my brothers in arms, have experienced nuclear weapons being used in theater. Although, I don't think anything would surprise me anymore.


Edited to add 2nd paragraph


[edit on 27-3-2010 by airspoon]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


I can second that about the DU. It is considered an extremely hazardous material. We were forbidden from gettiing on or in Iraqi tanks and armored vehicles, due to the dust from the DU rounds that penetrated the hulls.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

This is not a surprise, depleted uranium weaponry is "atomic" in nature, and we know about that.




Yeah but I could say that about anything literally.

All objects in the Universe are "atomic" in nature, essentially. Even the ice cream I am about to eat, is atomic in it's nature.

Sorry to nitpick, just showing the misunderstanding in your statement.


Whereas your statement is true, my point is simply that our mindset has a fixed perception of what a nuclear weapon should do and how it should look when activated. With the advancement of technology that utilizes the weapon of what the atom can do on a destructive level, it is at least possible that new blasts don't look like the old blasts.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   
The second picture in the graphical section is actually a picture of a mannequin baby. (I think that's what it's called)

It is a genetic disorder of the skin.

Not a result of depleted uranium.

There are many instances of where anti-war and islamic protestors using those pictures and claim that it is the result of the US war machine.

In my opinion, that takes credibility away from this MA PhD.

[edit on 3/27/2010 by die_another_day]



new topics

top topics



 
66
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join