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: 6
66
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 12:36 AM
link   
It seems some people on here think that any "nukes" used would be using the same (relatively ancient) technology as the very first fission bombs, produced in the 40's. Or maybe the fission/fusion bombs used in the 50's.

Do you honestly think that tactical nuclear weopons have not evolved since then?

And to the people claiming that they "were there", or involved in "shipment of weopons". Do you honestly think you are going to be told if there are highly secret weapons technology? Come on, this is the military.

If you are one of us posting on ATS, you are not going to be told of any technology that would be required to remain secret. That should be common sense, shouldn't it?

I'm sure there have been many developments in nuclear weopons since the 50's. It may be possible that fusion can be initiated without fissile materials, through methods such as 'sonoluminescence' or high intensity lasers or (enter unkown technology here) etc.

When the first hydrogen bombs were being tested, they obviously couldn't have remained secret, with massive yeilds and fallout. That's why they are common knowledge. But if you have access to tactical nukes with taylor made characteristics (low yeild, high neutron, or specified electromagnetic wavelength emmissions) and little to no fallout, you're not going to go tell every foot soldier in your army, are you.

A weapon such as this could have very little fallout, although neutron activation may still be detectable, but much less than the gamma radiation released by traditional A-bombs. They would not be expected to have the same characteristics, such as levelling entire villages, either.

I'm not saying that this is evidence that they were used. Rather that some of the previously mentioned points are not proof that they were not used.

To the OP, I applaud your effort to try and find out what is really happening. However I think it would pay to be more thorough with your posts and not making basic errors, such as stating the use of "thermobaric nuclear weapons". Other than that, keep up the research



[edit on 28/3/10 by Curious and Concerned]




posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 





It makes sense. The depleted uranium shells are just the cover story for all the radiation related illnesses and injuries being reported in Iraq and even on our own soldiers. If this gets out the whole world will turn against us in a very profound manner.

The whole world is already against you, they are just waiting to get stronger then annihilate America,. America too much nukes, not time yet therefore wait in the shadows..



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by oozyism
 


The whole world is already against you, they are just waiting to get stronger then annihilate America,. America too much nukes, not time yet therefore wait in the shadows..


That is never going to happen and the world be a place to live in. The US alone has enough Nukes to destroy the entire planet 11x over. And before America is destroyed or falls, there would be a massive nuclear launch on every nation that is trying to destroy her. MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is not just between Russia and the USA. You might want to research the situation before making some off hand comment like that. The US, as does Russia, believes they can survive a nuclear war and has built enough D.U.M.B.s, Seed Storage, Food Storage, etc to survive the resulting Nuclear Winter. I don't think many nations have that ability.

Now, for most of my life, I have felt that the US shouldn't try to be the police of the world and try to push their laws down the throats of others. It isn't just the American people that are having their government shove their ideas of how we should live and ridiculous laws pushed on us. It is the most destructive and unsustainable part of the Washington delusion of having their ideas pushed on others.

Washington D.C. is the military center of the NWO. Vatican city is the spiritual center, and London (The Crown Corporation) is the financial center. The US has such advanced war fighting technology that Russia has said, "In the next few years the US will have the ability to strike any target on Earth with impunity. Therefor, if Russia is attacked with the advanced technology of the US, Russia will use Nuclaear Weapons in retaliation."
Again, if Nuclear Weapons are used, it will be extremely difficult to prevent a much larger exchange which would effectively destroy the biosphere of Earth. The only hope anyone has is if some advanced alien race takes out the weapons before they reach their targets. There is a claim that a US ICBM test experienced just such an attack on the warhead when it went into space that caused the warhead to tumble out of control and fall into the Pacific Ocean. The same thing happened to 2 warheads launched toward the Moon. During testing of Nuclear weapons, many in the atmosphere or above ground, there was a total of over 600 detonationns. And that was the US alone. As I am sure everyone is aware, the US isn't the only major nuclear weapons power.

Edit Spelling

[edit on 28/3/10 by spirit_horse]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


This would reply to Mattification as well....


....remember, this thread, like all threads, is not a two way conversation. Not everyone knows what you know, has experienced what you experience, or believes what you believe. If you want to share any of these with them, you should phrase it nicely, and provide reading material to further the understanding that you have within the reader.

When i say "please provide sources", what i mean is "the op has additional reading material to clarify their stand, but you don't...so which is more credible to me?"

If your point is to be right in the eyes of the OP, that is one thing. But that is not what this forum is about. It isn't about being right. It is about sharing knowledge and denying ignorance.

someone just swinging in and claiming something is wrong, without any quantification, is not denying ignorance as it isn't guiding the reading to the truth. All it is is arguing.

If you feel it isn't worth your time to post a link, then why would it be worth your time to spend 10 minutes typing in an argument? Is this thread all about 1 or 2 people? Or can the audience learn something, too?



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
My point is that there's not enough evidence to support the OP's claim that nuclear weapons were used. What reading material should I be providing that further clarifies that?

I'm seriously asking you. I don't understand what else you want me to provide. Which of my statements are you challenging me to provide more information about?



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by jerico65
 


Excellent point.

OP, don't roll in the mud with anyone. You will only get dirty. You put up a good OP, with some evidence and some second hand, word of mouth stuff. It stands as is, and requires some believability factor for some.

There are many out there who will bury there head in the sand, just as there are an equal amount that will buy anything. You aren't trying to, and won't affect these two groups. Ignore them when they respond. Focus, instead, on the logical and rational people, and allow them to improve your mind as you (hopefully) improve theirs.

But pulling out terms like "zionist" is the same as calling someone a "Nazi". It is a one way ticket to a lost reputation.


roger that - my apologies

There was a post here not to long ago on ATS that linked to the Israeli Defense Force website that proved that the IDF intentionally sent out sympathizers to websites to do exactly what these guys are doing - attacking the folks that expose Zionist agendas in the same exact manner these people are attacking me with - so I assumed they were zionists, which is wrong on my part I suppose



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation
My point is that there's not enough evidence to support the OP's claim that nuclear weapons were used. What reading material should I be providing that further clarifies that?

I'm seriously asking you. I don't understand what else you want me to provide. Which of my statements are you challenging me to provide more information about?


There's been a MOUNTAIN of proof provided to support this OP, it appears that you are not reading through to the links that provide that proof.

One such link I provided was a GOOGLE SEARCH on the subject. I suggest that you do a google search on the topic matter of "Nuclear Weapons Iraq Afghanistan" - in that exact format.

You'll get more information than I can even think to provide with this post!

=)

[edit to provide links]

As a matter of fact, I'll even help you: Google Search:

Nuclear Weapons Iraq Afghanistan

Results 1,050,000 for Nuclear Weapons Iraq Afghanistan

[edit on 28-3-2010 by DarkspARCS]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Well i gave you the field manuals there online look them up. Im merely pointing out a flaw in the theory that military personnel wouldnt know that radiation is in the ares is wrong. Its standard that NBC detection gear is placed anytime us soldiers are in an area. So simply saying they wouldnt know doesnt cut it. As for proving a negative which is what your asking me to do cannot be done i seriously doubt youll find anything explaining nukes were not used there would be no need to write that article would there?

There fore you have to base it on known facts on how depleted uranium works and procedures that the military takes to prevent exposure to nuclear and biological agents.What we have here is just a lack of knowledge about tactical operations you cant make accusations without understanding how tactical weapons are used. For example a dirty bobmb has no use in warfare only terrorism. The army cant afford for soldiers to have to wait weeks to die they can do alot of damage in that time.

There is no way that the use of nukes could have helped the military in this situation.Having been a commander in the military i assure you the US military gains nothing by making people sick. As for the iraqi that claimed they were being used yeah sure he obviously doesnt understand anything about radiation and what it does watched to many movies i guess.


Ps as for long term exposure to depleted uranium there has not been proven to be a health risk as i stated earlier part of it is its just such low dosages. The other problem is if it does become airborne it dissipates quickly meaning. And if your that close youve got bigger problems then radiation exposure!!!!



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Well i gave you the field manuals there online look them up. Im merely pointing out a flaw in the theory that military personnel wouldnt know that radiation is in the ares is wrong. Its standard that NBC detection gear is placed anytime us soldiers are in an area. So simply saying they wouldnt know doesnt cut it. As for proving a negative which is what your asking me to do cannot be done i seriously doubt youll find anything explaining nukes were not used there would be no need to write that article would there?

There fore you have to base it on known facts on how depleted uranium works and procedures that the military takes to prevent exposure to nuclear and biological agents.What we have here is just a lack of knowledge about tactical operations you cant make accusations without understanding how tactical weapons are used. For example a dirty bobmb has no use in warfare only terrorism. The army cant afford for soldiers to have to wait weeks to die they can do alot of damage in that time.

There is no way that the use of nukes could have helped the military in this situation.Having been a commander in the military i assure you the US military gains nothing by making people sick. As for the iraqi that claimed they were being used yeah sure he obviously doesnt understand anything about radiation and what it does watched to many movies i guess.


Ps as for long term exposure to depleted uranium there has not been proven to be a health risk as i stated earlier part of it is its just such low dosages. The other problem is if it does become airborne it dissipates quickly meaning. And if your that close youve got bigger problems then radiation exposure!!!!


Star for you DragonRider - You are absolutely correct in you Post Script.

Imagine a sealed space with all these live alpha particles bouncing around in it - for the next 4.5 billion years. Now imagine planet Earth being that sealed environment - how long before those released alpha particles infiltrate all life on this planet?

EVERY NUCLEAR WEAPONS TEST - let alone actual offensive strikes - has released these alpha particles into our environment.

*sigh*

We need to develope some form of clean up apparatus, and soon!



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by DarkspARCS
 


What people dont realize the radiation threat is non existant whats dangerous is u 235 its toxic!!!!!! If ingested in high enough quantity it will kill you and not from radiation exposure.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Well My mistake relating to the term "THERMOBARIC" came from some of the materials from other informative articles I've read that supported the idea of this topic. The terms "HYPERBOLIC" and "HYPERBARIC" came into play too, as these were terms directly quoted from political sources.

True, I'm not a Nuclear Physicist, Rocket Scientist, or even a Military Genius lol, for that matter.

I however am quite intelligent, and possess a high IQ to enhance the understanding of theory, hypothesis, and even one to formulate these things. I wasn't in Iraq, or Afghanistan (for that matter, my position is that America doesn't belong there either, but at home with their families)... However I have done the watchdog research from information provided by others that were there, and the conclusive EVIDENCE points towards the use of MODERN TECHNOLOGIES that are based upon THERMONUCLEAR principles. The documentation I provided for the THERMONUCLEAR BUNKER BUSTER has become part of that proof.

That alone should have quashed most arguments here. but it's apparent that not even scientific documentation will provide proof.

So, inevitably, folks will tuck their heads into their sandbags, and yell "false".

Whatever.

I will not do that. It may get me killed one day, who knows - but for HUMANITY'S sake, I will remain true to my Brothers and Sisters, under God's oversight.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
"United States has, ... detonated Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East

... the United States has been using Tactical Nuclear Weapons

"The BLU-82 and the MOAB are, in fact, much larger and more powerful weapons even than an FAE. They are based on a mix of ammonium nitrate and powdered aluminium in an aqueous suspension or slurry, with a binding agent to hold the materials together before detonation.

So which is it? Did we use tactical nukes or did we use a MOAB? A MOAB is not a nuke by any definition. The ole' bull# metter has pegged out.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation
My point is that there's not enough evidence to support the OP's claim that nuclear weapons were used. What reading material should I be providing that further clarifies that?

I'm seriously asking you. I don't understand what else you want me to provide. Which of my statements are you challenging me to provide more information about?


Actually, there is no evidence other than hearsay testimony, or actually comments, made by someone who was in the theater. I was in the theater several times, and everyone knew that depleted uranium ordinance was used because it's ALWAYS used against armor.

I'll call BS on the OP because the OP obviously has limited knowledge of modern ordinance, plus the fact that there are enough non-US personnel from many nations that would have screamed their leftie lungs out at a mere rumor of TNWs.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Nonsense.

If anybody anywhere in the world explodes a nuke then all the other nuclear (and some non nuclear) powers can detect it. It's called fallout! Lots of different isotopes are thrown into the air which travel around the world and can be detected.

If the US was exploding nukes don't you think the russians and chinese would have something to say?



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by DarkspARCS
 


By no means is depleted uranium the same as a dirty bomb.Why do people continue to believe these lies Personally im beginning to believe it is to push an agenda. Ok most people dont like the fact were in Iraq i dont its gone on way to long and costs way to much money. But to lie to get an agenda pushed is wrong people do that to often now a days. If you really want to take the time to learn about deleted uranium read this it will help you realize your being lied to.
hps.org...



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I am sure there are some whiz kids that have the knowledge that can look up the tora bora charts and check via satellite for radiation... and even low level LY warheads would be active...

so I ask the OP to provide that aspect of your diatribe... that would lend credence to what you alledge... but at tthis point...

EOD was my MOS and i did my job quite well... so if you got that aspect of the maps and charts (they are there)... then post em...



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Exactly. DU is nasty, and poisonous, but it's not a nuke. It's used for anti-armor because it's hard and can penetrate armored vehicles.

(Edited to add a bit. )


[edit on 28-3-2010 by jerico65]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by DarkspARCS
ok, jerico65 - wow, jerico65... wouldnt happen to be from the Israeli Defense Force with a name like that, now would you?

HOW DARE YOU CALL ME RACIST ! I'll tell you this however, if you said that to my face, you'd be lucky to make it to a hospital once I was through with you. The internet was a blessing for folks like you, wasn't it?

COWARDLY and IGNORANT....

I HAPPEN TO BE ISRAELI BY BLOOD YOU M*R*N!


You complain about someone sending you U2Us that hurt your feelings, sic the mods on him, then you feel the need to do a bit of namecalling AND threats of violence against me.


Once again: Pot, meet kettle.

And trust me, I'm not losing any sleep over your petty threats, Craftsman.

Now, back to the thread!





not even a wink huh? *walks away all mad...*


Anyway...


Essentially, yes, I think that perhaps several weeks of pouring over the 'evidence' provided on the net will prove yeah or nay on this subject. I intend on doing just that.

What I've provided in this thread provideds a substantial amount of information that suggests truth. What I discover with my thorough investigation may prove this truth.

I don't see anyone else doing this... When I provide my results, I'm sure the same attacks on my character will ensue, so the question is, will it be worth it to do?

I somehow don't think finding out the total truth would matter. Not anymore.



new topics

top topics



 
66
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join