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.

 

Bachmann advocates nuclear response to Cyber-Attack

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Re: Rep. Michele Bachmann- Minnesota

I was watching Cable News today while exercising on my treadmill when I heard the quote below. Ms. Bachmann was upset about recent proposals to limit nuclear response. She was upset that we wouldn't retaliate with a nuclear response to a Cyber Attack. I literally stopped in my tracks and was flung off my treadmill into my wife's old Thigh Master.

So take solace in the idea that the next time you get an e-mail from Nigeria soliciting assistance from a nice family hoping to migrate to the US with the promise of Millions of Dollars, rest assured that if Michelle gets her way, we'll nuke 'em to kingdom come.


"So if in fact there is a nation who is compliant with all the rules ahead of time...if they fire against the United States, a biological weapon, a chemical weapon, or maybe a cyber attack, then we aren't going to be firing back with nuclear weapons," said Bachmann. "Doesn't that make us all feel safe?"


CBS News Source

Yes I feel quite safe now Michelle, but my head is a little dinged from the Suzanne Summers Anti-Cellulite Device.




[edit on 7-4-2010 by kinda kurious]




posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Maybe they sould have just left it at we won't nuke a non-nuke possessing country if they are in good standing with the non-proliferation treaty ?

A large percentage of the worlds hackers come from a certain province in China. It's most certainly state sponsored. Now I'm not saying we should nuke them for it, but what if the Chinese govt crashed the entire Wall Street trading computers, or maliciously destroyed vital US defense/intelligence networks in preparation for an assault on Taiwan ? Or Australia ?



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
*waits eagerly with hand hovering just slightly over "the button", for the next spam email...*

Okay, seriously...what in the blue hell is she thinking equating a "cyber attack" with a bio or nuclear attack?
And, if there was some kind of cyber deluge on our nation, isn't there a chance that it would...oh...I don't know...effectively knock out our nuclear capability?
Wouldn't that be the point in the first place?
It's not like an attack would focus on our ability to turn our street lights on so that they can attack under the cover of darkness...or would it...?



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


So, as if we don't have enough wars going on already, she is anticipating wars, and almost fantasizing wars. I think this gives a rather succinct picture of how her mind works.

I wonder if she believes we should have used these weapons following 9/11?


*sorry about the dinged head KK*



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


Sorry OP, I completely missed it after reading the article, apology given.



[edit on 4/7/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


In the spirit of fairness, I included the ENTIRE quote in OP. You repeated same. Are you implying I selectively filtered the quote? Those were her EXACT words. Your point?



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Well now lets understand both sides tend to fall into this catagory and one side is the sa...wait, wtf...nuke cyber attacks?

ok, I take it back, the right wing is off the chain mad.

Context remains the same...biological attack, chemical attack, carjacking attack, nuke em all..

ya...erm...someone move that chick away from the mic.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


S & F for this alone



I literally stopped in my tracks and was flung off my treadmill into my wife's old Thigh Master.



Thanks for the image and laughter



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


Sorry OP, I completely missed it after reading the article, apology given.



[edit on 4/7/2010 by endisnighe]


NOOOOO
you cant leave it there...say it..just say it already
the woman is a freaking nutcase...a sandwich short of a full picnic...window licking, helmet wearing fruit loop.

You had a thread where your considering running for POTUS...go for it, make a statement of what is acceptable and what is just flat out stupid even when its on your side of the aisle.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Geez, they'll go to any lengths won't they?

I think it's a good thing that we won't use nukes...cripes...who the hell would advocate using them?

After all, NOT using nukes is far more profitable. No need for new planes, heli's, missiles, etc.

Bringing down active nukes...which Obama has done...is a good thing. I don't know how it can't be.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Hey, Bachmann has a lot of points that I believe in, but of course she has a problem with intelligence.


As for my side of the aisle, I do not see a Constitutional Libertarian Party as a side of the aisle. You point that side of the aisle out and I may defend it, but no, no part of either aisle in this debate.

Both sides of the aisle are warmongers and policeman of the world plus totalitarians. So, leave me out of the mudslinging contest. For every idiotic sound bite from the repubs, you can point to another idiotic soundbite from the dems.

We would not want to bring up the island tipping over or the healthcare bill to CONTROL the people shall we?

Sorry, absolute social liberal here and fiscal conservative. Staunch believer in removing all un Constitutional federal controls and enforcing all corporations into the anti trust and anti monopoly mandates of the Constitution. Which includes the Federal corporation, Federal Reserve corporation, the IRS corporation, the State of ________ corporation, the Court corporations etc etc etc. I wonder, are any of the US armed forces corporations also? I wonder if their mandate is to protect "persons" or human beings-Tell me, are you a person, citizen, resident, corporation or a HUMAN BEING?

Remember that little component of the Constitution that both sides of the aisle use to encroach on our freedoms?"[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes" REGULATION-To make regular was the original intet, not to mandate federal control or whatever damn thing either side wants to control.

As for her inclusion of the cyber attack in the sentence, if it was a pre-emptive attack to a larger more inclusive attack, would you authorize the use of nukes? Or how about the use of EMP's or how bout some of the new fangle high explosives that are currently being used and have been used in the past? Thread here-United States has, unbeknownst to America, detonated Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East

Could these devices be the source of all the problems with birth defects and things like Gulf War syndrome?

All of the problems can be led straight back to the Globalization movement being carried out by both sides of the Damn Two Headed Snake from Hell. You would think the way Obama went around the world prior to the elections he was campaigning as the President of the World. Do you not see the problem with that.

Countries of the world need to be sovereign. Unless you think being a Statist Totalitarian is a good thing. Sorry, not falling into the traps.

End of rant, the endisnighe.

[edit on 4/7/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


sounds like something she would say ,,somewhere a cave is missing its bat$^%.
check out dumpbachmann.blogspot.com... more of her bat%&^* crazy talk.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   
If I can't get on ATS, I'm nukin' SOMEBODY!


What a nut case! I can honestly say I'm not surprised at this after some of the stuff I've heard from her.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Thanks for the reference kk - and on CBS no less

"She's so one of us" - I'd stay away from that group!

gj



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Ah those hippy, dippy, nerdy terrorists won't know what hit em. man the silos boys we're gonna hit em hard!


The woman is off her rocker.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by antonia]



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Re: Rep. Michele Bachmann- Minnesota

I was watching Cable News today while exercising on my treadmill when I heard the quote below. Ms. Bachmann was upset about recent proposals to limit nuclear response. She was upset that we wouldn't retaliate with a nuclear response to a Cyber Attack. I literally stopped in my tracks and was flung off my treadmill into my wife's old Thigh Master.

So take solace in the idea that the next time you get an e-mail from Nigeria soliciting assistance from a nice family hoping to migrate to the US with the promise of Millions of Dollars, rest assured that if Michelle gets her way, we'll nuke 'em to kingdom come.


"So if in fact there is a nation who is compliant with all the rules ahead of time...if they fire against the United States, a biological weapon, a chemical weapon, or maybe a cyber attack, then we aren't going to be firing back with nuclear weapons," said Bachmann. "Doesn't that make us all feel safe?"


CBS News Source

Yes I feel quite safe now Michelle, but my head is a little dinged from the Suzanne Summers Anti-Cellulite Device.




[edit on 7-4-2010 by kinda kurious]




you do realize what a major cyber attack can and would do to this nation don't you???

Think of it this way...One major hit and the grid goes down, the gas lines shut down, and all communications go down... and thus that affects the economy on a massive level...
So, Maybe not nuke them....at first, because you are not going to know who actually did it at first and whether it was government sanctioned.

But hey the entire thing the obama is doing is idiotic at best...by lowering the shield we had for 60 years or so... we will be percieved as a weaker nation and we will get hit...

At that point, if on the other directio ...a nation hits us with a bio or chemical..i would not hestitate to remove that nation from the face of the earth...



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   
That is quite an amazing statement.
I think I'll feel safe as long as nuclear decision doesn't stand in her hands.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 05:03 AM
link   

you do realize what a major cyber attack can and would do to this nation don't you???

Think of it this way...One major hit and the grid goes down, the gas lines shut down, and all communications go down... and thus that affects the economy on a massive level...
So, Maybe not nuke them....at first, because you are not going to know who actually did it at first and whether it was government sanctioned.

But hey the entire thing the obama is doing is idiotic at best...by lowering the shield we had for 60 years or so... we will be percieved as a weaker nation and we will get hit...

At that point, if on the other directio ...a nation hits us with a bio or chemical..i would not hestitate to remove that nation from the face of the earth...


You do realise that the proper functioning of the infrastructure in your country isn't kept online via the web for any cyber-warrior to hack through correct? That most sites of power and fuel would suffer no functioning damage if their websites were "attacked" by anyone for any reason whatsoever?! Right!!?!?! Jesus...what paranoia.

I herald from Australia, and I caught some of the Obama office-men talking about the recent change in defence policy concerning the use of nuclear arms. What frightened me most was somebody talking to the effect of "if you're in north korea or Iran, and you threaten the United States...then all cards are on the table". Christ, so you'll readily launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes upon millions of innocent people should the desire and/or "accurate intelligence" analysis suggest such an option.

What hypocrisy, what utter bollocks.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Milleresque
......I caught some of the Obama office-men talking about the recent change in defence policy concerning the use of nuclear arms. What frightened me most was somebody talking to the effect of "if you're in north korea or Iran, and you threaten the United States...then all cards are on the table". Christ, so you'll readily launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes upon millions of innocent people should the desire and/or "accurate intelligence" analysis suggest such an option.


FACT CHECK: Please see quote here:


But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.


Source

I believe you added a critical word......pre-emptive. I do not see that word in quote. Please read ENTIRE article for context. Thanks.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Milleresque

you do realize what a major cyber attack can and would do to this nation don't you???

Think of it this way...One major hit and the grid goes down, the gas lines shut down, and all communications go down... and thus that affects the economy on a massive level...
So, Maybe not nuke them....at first, because you are not going to know who actually did it at first and whether it was government sanctioned.

But hey the entire thing the obama is doing is idiotic at best...by lowering the shield we had for 60 years or so... we will be percieved as a weaker nation and we will get hit...

At that point, if on the other directio ...a nation hits us with a bio or chemical..i would not hestitate to remove that nation from the face of the earth...


You do realise that the proper functioning of the infrastructure in your country isn't kept online via the web for any cyber-warrior to hack through correct? That most sites of power and fuel would suffer no functioning damage if their websites were "attacked" by anyone for any reason whatsoever?! Right!!?!?! Jesus...what paranoia.

I herald from Australia, and I caught some of the Obama office-men talking about the recent change in defence policy concerning the use of nuclear arms. What frightened me most was somebody talking to the effect of "if you're in north korea or Iran, and you threaten the United States...then all cards are on the table". Christ, so you'll readily launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes upon millions of innocent people should the desire and/or "accurate intelligence" analysis suggest such an option.

What hypocrisy, what utter bollocks.



you need to realize thatt here have been consitent attacks on the grid since way back... or are you another one running aorund with their head stuffed... back in 2005 it was and remains a common attack point by these people from all over the world... we adjust and adapt and they do the same thing...

so since you wish to believe that all is well and no bad guys are out there doing anything .... I have a good word for you...... Blivet



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join