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.


a Nuclear attack on America

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 10:20 AM
so i find it pretty damn curious that all of a sudden there seems to be alot of talk about a nuke going off in americana. check it out:

Clinton fears al-Qaeda is obtaining nuclear weapons material

US Alerted of Nuclear Attack Between April and May 2010

Obama: Al-Qaida would use nuke if it could biggest threat to U.S. security

Bin Laden Al Qaeda Terror Attack To Be Nuclear Report

These kinds of headlines are scary.. a nuke or two or whatever goess off inside the united states which may or may not be a false flag that sends the US and its dying economy into a world war. it just seems alittle funny that all of a sudden "al-qaeda obtaning nuclear weapons is the biggest security threat to america" when it hasnt been mentioned at all his entire term. I predict the next world war this decade.. against whom im not sure but the economic climate will force the issue.

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 10:32 AM
reply to post by TheCoffinman

u mean like this too

Obama Appeals to World Powers to Keep Nukes Out of Terrorist Hands

the word appeal to me doesn't sound very appealing or feasible sigh

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 10:33 AM
I'm very glad that you brought this up. I was just talking about this with some friends in ATS chat and skype after hearing a soundclip on NPR of Obama mentioning that if we are attacked by a nuke, than America will go through a lot of change.

Monday, with the Obama administration stressing the urgency of the threat of nuclear terrorism and residents of the nation's capital bracing for potentially massive traffic disruptions due to motorcades, street closures and security checkpoints.

So, they are calling for some things to be implemented in advance. So if/when this occurs they can snap into place the final regulations they may need to completely control the population. A little "We told you this would happen! And you didn't listen! Now listen to this!"

This is a cause for concern. So, let's make these fears hit the rounds alongside their brand of fear mongering so that we can say the same thing. "We told you this was going to happen. You didn't listen. Now listen to this!"

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 10:35 AM
Great..,.so some middle eastern hellhole gets a nuke...then what?

Hard to tuck it into a suitcase...what are they going to do, line up 400 men and throw it over here?

I smell fear tactics frankly...

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 10:38 AM
to be honest i am not getting what all this crap is about they keep coming out with all the time, they sign nuclear deals with russia, then russia says that an atack on iran U.S., Israeli Attack on Iran Would Be 'Unacceptable' - Russia Military, i mean make your minds up people on what your priorities are!

its like a school yard out there

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 10:44 AM
reply to post by patmac

considering that Obama campiagned on "change" well thats just spooky

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 10:48 AM
Let's put the whole "nuke" thing in perspective.

First, if we are talking about a terrorist attack and not war with another nation, then we really do not need to be afraid. The possibility of a terrorist organization either buying a nuclear weapon or making one is highly remote.

Buying one: First question- From Whom? The fissile material currently produced in rogue states like N. Korea and Iran is not the kind of stuff you can smuggle into a country. The N. Korean weapons-grade uranium is the kind of stuff the United States was playing around with in the 1950s. It is far too unstable to be transported by a terrorist organization into the United States. Moreover, cooperation between the N. Korean regime and an Islamic terrorist organization is laughably unlikely.

So, buy it from Iran? Same problem. Neither of the Iranian nuclear reactors has produced enough fissile material to allow the Iranians to construct their own bomb, much less given them the highly refined uranium needed for tactical nuclear weapons. Again, they have yet to develop ICBM/Long-Range delivery systems for Atomic weapons, and most certainly have yet to develop the means of using "suitcase nukes."

So, buying one from the mysterious Ex-Soviet stockpiles? This one seems reasonable until you realize that most of these "lost" weapons are not so lost as to fall into the hands of terrorist organizations. Any transaction of the magnitude of terrorists buying ex-Soviet materials would not go unnoticed by spy organizations around the world. Again, the question is who would sell these weapons to terrorists? First, if one buys from these mysterious Ex-Soviet caches that are apparently lying around, the Islamic group with first dibs are the Islamic rebels in Chechnya.

Also, we can be reasonably confident that terrorists are not in possession of a weapon currently, because they have not used one. Therefore, we can be reasonably confident spy organizations will learn of any big transactions if they happen.

Ok, so... somehow our little terrorist group is able to procure a weapon of mass destruction without any spy organization finding out. Guess we're toast now! Not really.... The ability to get a "suitcase" nuclear weapon into the United States really would be very difficult without raising suspicion or bragging about it on a crazy terrorist website.

In conclusion, if "the terrorists" had a nuclear weapon, they would have used it already. However, it's more than likely if they got one, they would probably wind up blowing themselves up through mishandling the material long before it got to the United States.

Realistic terrorist fears: car bombs, hostages, a plane blowing up.

Unrealistic fears: apocalyptic cataclysms that most legitimate governments couldn't even do.

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 10:55 AM

Originally posted by Iago18
Let's put the whole "nuke" thing in perspective.

Link submitted to add to the perspective.

CONS: Barksdale Missile Number Six: The Stolen Nuclear Weapon

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 11:05 AM
It won't really be a terrorist. Some poor CIA spook with a head full of post-hypnotic suggestion Ala the Manchurian Candidate will get the duty, and then it will be blamed on "terrorists".

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 11:07 AM
If our govt either lets us BE nuked, or does it themselves- I say we march right into washington, grab every last one of the politicians, chain them up, drag them to ground zero, and leave them there.

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 11:08 AM
reply to post by Iago18

now lets have a look at the other side of things. terrorist is a term broadly used by western governments to demonize anyone they see fit. lets say TPTB want something from someone. It is obvious to me that Iran and North Korea are not falling into line as they must, otherwise they cant rule the world like they want to. hence their "rogue" status. i think in the 9 years weve been "at war" with "terrorists" we can surmize that "terrorists" used improvised devices to do their damage with. there is NO WAY that i could fathom an orgnaization getting ahold of a nuke. however, they are still "terrorists" to the media, to the ignorant masses and convenient fokls to blame a nuclear attack on. SO, now we must come to the conclusion that perhaps a false flag is coming. america is no longer the darling of the world. we are no longer favoured in the eys of its global citizenery. what better way to get that back then to set off a nuke in your country. (we used that same tactic on 9/11) look at the global economy, its in shambles.. america is on the verge and they either know it and dont care or know it and do care and therefore are orchestrating a nuclear attack on american soil they can blame terrorists, iran, north korea, or maybe all of the above on and therefore precipitate world war III. there is no better way to get ones country out of economic depression then a major war. what better way for banker fascists to utulize their countrymen.

"The way to make money is to buy when blood is running in the streets."
John D. Rockefeller

america is a nation divided right now.. what better way to make the masses forget the criminals inside your government and banking institutions then a nuclear attack on your own soil... who has the capability to pull off such an attack... CIA, NSA, Mossad... certainly the israeli state would have much to gain from such a conflict. complete dominance of the middle east. a green light to annex all of jerusalem and rebuild their temple.. they have much to gain from a flase flag nuclear strike on american soil. as president obama put it, there would be alot of change...

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 11:12 AM
reply to post by patmac

bingo! theres your nuclear weapon... i remember that thread and now it comes back into play.

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 11:15 AM
It will be a false flag with a tactical weapon. Same deal as 9/11 only more people dead. Look for a major city in a conservative area of middle America. Gives Zero an excuse to declare martial law and postpone/cancel the November elections. Thats why there is so little worry by the rats about the upcoming election, and Pelosi told them not to worry about it and vote against the wishes of the people on healthcare.

I didn't dream this one up, a super conservative, no nonsense friend mentioned it to me. I about fell out of my chair. He was the last person in the world I would ever have thought would pose such a scenario.

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 11:22 AM
Why go to all the trouble and expense of a nuke when this is viable option.

Sept 2001 issue of Popular Mechanics

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 12:04 PM

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Great..,.so some middle eastern hellhole gets a nuke...then what?

Hard to tuck it into a suitcase...what are they going to do, line up 400 men and throw it over here?

I smell fear tactics frankly...

Fear tactics . . . Yes. Hype to get press and maleability of the American Public. . . Yes.

But, it is not that hard to truck something into the US. Our Southern borders are obviously wide open, Our Northern Border does not even have toll booths, you just drive across and read the Welcome to the US sign! Our Industrial Ports are guarded just sufficiently, but pleasure boats don't face a single bit of scrutiny, or search, or anything else!

OBL himself could be on a pleasure yacht, riding a nuclear weapon, stop and get drunk in Miami, Tampa, and Pensacola. Sale through New Orleans, drop some cash at the Casino, and park his nuke in Memphis or St. Louis with no problem! As long as he was spending money on gambling and liquor and women along the way, he would fit right in, and no body would raise an eyebrow!

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 12:42 PM
If something is to happen the "Sodom and Gomorrah" principle kicks in
People will be impressed to get out of town, stay home, etc. If too many
good people stay it won't happen. Kind of rules out Washington, doesn't it!_javascript:icon('

Based on that, I have a guess as to place and date... Should I say,
or let people's impressions protect them?

OK, Okl...but I won't give sources...

Atlanta end of June...

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 12:56 PM
reply to post by jumpingbeanz

Yeah this is very distressing, especially living right within Hbomb range of a Top 5 target...maybe I`ll get lucky and they will use regular oldschool abombs instead... I think NY should be safe, unless it`s a multiple bomb attack. Then nyc and dc would be obvious targets. But if it`s just one bomb, it doesn`t really matter where inside the u.s. it goes off, although I`m sure they will choose a target that will crank up the emotions and all the patriots will come pout again demanding "justice" (in other words, mnore death and suffering) just like after 911...
Ok so these guys livin in caves planned 911. I can`t WAIT to see how this next one turns out. The OFFICIAL STORY will be something like: The cave dwelling terrorists have struck again, this time they somehow managed to build 5 nukes (watch they will probably be the more powerful hydrogen bombs too) out of rubber bands and toilet paper. And they were somehow able to teleport the nukes into place 3 seconds before they detonated, they allegedly built a teleporter out of sand and their own feces. Thats our OS and we`re sticking to it.
Whatever it is, we already know the cause of it. Too many people are waking up. They need a serious diversion to put the final stranglehold on our liberties and force us into one world dictatorship. I bet they were hoping they could delay the next false flag a bit longer, but these darn people are gettin a little too smart... so let`s see how smart they are when we put the entire country into a state of shock... shock `n` awe! However, I believe that, in their haste, they will make one too many mistakes this time and the truth will detonate in their faces. Over a million people will storm the white house alone (if it`s still standing. they could very well use this f.f. to destroy it and rebuild somewhere else). Civilians will die but they will be so fed up they wont care. Other civilians may side with the gov. The military may get split in half. Civil war will become ww3 when other powers start to take advantage of our weakened state and we hopefully will reunite again to face our attackers. Sure it`s all speculation, but it could happen.

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 12:59 PM
reply to post by UMayBRite!

No, no, no that will never do. If they choose Atlanta, it limits their options for blame. They will have to hit Cali, Denver, or Detroit. Detroit is my bet. They have to keep their options open on who they will blame, and how they will respond. Everyone knows that the good ol' militias and patriots won't attack Atlanta, so that means Al Qaeda is the only conceivable source, but depending on the political climate, they may have to blame this on one of our own people to achieve their ultimate goal. Therefore, they have to choose a "yankee" target, and a liberal setting. Ergo, Denver, or Cali. Now, to really get maximum bang for buck, they need to choose a depressed area, with a lot of unemployment, a lot of rundown real estate, and a lot of dissatisfaction with the status quo. Ergo Detroit.

IMHO, Detroit is the best possible target. Minimal damage, maximum effect, and most options for spin-meistering!

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 01:00 PM
I guess the question you have to ask yourself is: is the United States government willing to allow/perpetrate an act of mass murder in order to placate the population?

My answer is a solid No. I believe that there are fringe, power-hungry individuals who might advocate for something like that, but, I don't think they are the ones in power.

I sincerely hope I'm right. My blinders aren't on, and I'm not saying there is no chance of something like this happening, but I simply don't think it will.

On the realistic aspect of a TERRORIST blowing up a nuke, that should be taken with a grain of salt. There is very little terrorist threat as far as a WMD is concerned. Terrorists do things like 9/11: shock value, no real technological know-how, and a few knives. Major superpowers do things like shoot massive missiles at cities/blow up millions of people. The two cannot coexist in an event. No terrorist kills millions. No state hijacks planes and flies them into buildings.

Again, here's to hoping rampant paranoid fear of the government is wrong!

[edit on 12-4-2010 by Iago18]

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 01:09 PM
I would bet if they launched a nuke it would be in Texas somewhere like Dallas or Houston. The reason is, all they have to do is sneak over the border and detonate it. Minivan strapped with a nuke and no fear of getting caught. This is why it is so important to have our boys here at home instead of overseas and put them all along the border. You won't get a nuke across the booths down there, but there aren't nearly enough booths or fence to keep the terrorists out.

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in