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.

 

Why Nuclear War Must NEVER Happen

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
Karl,
When the wind blows is better!!



Hey bud, I'm a big fan of Raymond Briggs (Fungus the Bogeyman was great) and 'When the wind blows' is an excellent piece of work.


I think though, when it comes to objectively examining the true horrors of nuclear warfare (ie: starvation, radiation sickness, nuclear winters, cannibalism, deformed births etc..) then 'Threads' is most definitely up there.

Cheers.




posted on May, 31 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   
I have a theory about the possibility why a nuclear war CANNOT happen. Why? Because nuclear weapons could be a 'big lie'.


"... in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." -- Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
If you ever need putting of nuclear war for life (quite literally) then see "Nuclear war: A Guide to Armageddon"

www.youtube.com...

But so far Muturally Assurred Destruction (because it's so transparentally MAD) has prevented war, rather than caused it.



Liberal1984, that is a very interesting video -thanks for posting that one (and it has put me off nuclear war for life).


Heres another one dealing with MAD and describing just how close it actualy came on the 8th November, 1983.



1983: The Brink of the Apocalypse.



Google Video Link




An extremely powerful programme, this documentary focuses on 8 November 1983, a date now recognised as one of the most dangerous moments in the entire history of the Cold War. On this near-fateful day, a series of accidents nearly unleashed the Third World War. Senior figures in the Soviet Union had convinced themselves that they were about to come under nuclear attack from the West, and the vast Soviet nuclear arsenal of missiles, bombers and submarines were put on maximum alert, ready to launch a full nuclear retaliatory attack on Western Europe and the US. Armageddon beckoned.This documentary tells the dramatic story behind this sequence of events when Soviet fingers hovered perilously over the nuclear button. The intelligence communities in the US, Europe and the former USSR have never before admitted to the scale of this crisis.


Cheers.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Deny Ignorance



Well, I do believe no major power would even consider the us of these weapons.

And contrary to what some of you naive children think they do exist.

I have been in the presence of more than you could imagine and wondered why rational people would create and stockpile such a large quantity.

It was I finally decided about the number of jobs created by the industry.




In the case of Iraq, if the US government had concrete facts that Saddam possessed WMD as they said initially, it is safe to assume they would have tread more lightly on their military response.


They knew from the get go that he did not have the weapons, and cherry picked that target. Where the conspiracy lies, is why they went to war to begin with?

There is much speculation as to why, but nothing definitive of the true reasoning behind armed hostilities against Iraqi regime.


To this poster Iraq had the capability and HAD used these weapons before.The Kurds knew this and the Iranians knew this.

The whole world knew with out a doubt that he was capable of using these weapons because he HAD used them on these people.

This was COMMON knowledge.

Having these devices and using these devices as an act of failed diplomacy are two totally different things.

Deny Ignorance




posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
The threat of nuclear war after World War II is what kept the Soviets and the United States in check. That is we both realized that several million people would have been killed in just one missle salvo between us and the Soviets. If it would not have been for the power check that the threat of nuclear war presented. Then some crazed Soviet general might have taken something that either our government or one of our allies could have done as an act of war. This little thing called "Mutually Assured Destruction," was basically the only thing that kept us and the Soviets from going to all out nuclear war.

However, just because the Cold War is "officially" over with. It does not mean that nuclear war cannot break out. What most people do not realize is that Russia is still a nuclear threat to us and the rest of the world. Plus, we have a new threat with China and Pakistan being in posession of nuclear weapons. It is an even more constant danger of the premiss of nuclear war breaking out. We need to renew our efforts to educate younger generation about the dangers associated with nuclear war. We also need to keep in the back of our minds of the capabilities that nuclear weapons have when it comes to effecting us as a civilization. To help keep that with us, all we have to do is look back on the A-bomb drops over Hirshima and Nagasaki to be reminded of the horrors of nuclear war.

I think Albert Einstein said it best pertaining to the use of nuclear weapons.

"I do not know with what weapons World War
III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."


What is scary about this is that we still have enough nuclear weapons in the world today so that we humans could destroy ourselves with.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
i agree. many kids dont recognize the scare that came about during the cold war. and although lessoned, that threat is still very alive today



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anders Lindman
I have a theory about the possibility why a nuclear war CANNOT happen. Why? Because nuclear weapons could be a 'big lie'.


Maybe I should elaborate a bit. My conspiracy theory is that the Manhattan Project never did succeed in creating a functional atom bomb, and that they instead faked it together with the Japanese government. A classic example of a big lie strategy.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimmefootball400
The threat of nuclear war after World War II is what kept the Soviets and the United States in check.


Hi gimme, I'm new to the ATS forum and don't want to appear rude (I have been kicked out of other forums before very quickly). My take on it is that the Cold War too could be a huge scam, another big lie a la Hitler, used by the ruling elite to control the masses on both sides.

What do you need to dominate the world? The answer is that first you need the APPEARANCE of having a very powerful weapon, e.g. the atom bomb. Next you need to make sure that the population would go along with continuing feeding and fueling a massive industrial military complex. One way of doing that was to create a formidable enemy who the public believed ALSO got access to the atom bomb:Say hello to the Cold War.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Oneolddude

Deny Ignorance


I have been in the presence of more than you could imagine and wondered why rational people would create and stockpile such a large quantity.

It was I finally decided about the number of jobs created by the industry.


That raises a very interesting personal question from me to you...but that will be a private matter

I am an ex-2W2 in the Air Force. I have seen the Minuteman III up close. Touched them...built them. I have seen the massive stockpiles and reserves by my own eyes. All the time I started wondering about their actual use and I came upon a few personal decisions.

1. I did not want to build them anymore. I know it may sound cliché but it is true. I liked the science behind them (though any REAL 2W2 will tell you that building them, while technical, is not very scientific unless you work for Sandia or Pantex)

Regardless I just didn’t like what I was doing anymore so I changed to 3M0 (Services)

2. The sabre-rattling does have its purpose IMO. Now I say IMO because I have figured out that a lot of people here claim they have the inside track when it comes to evidence but frankly if you don’t work directly with those government officials than you are speculating. I built the Minuteman III but I am not a missileer so I do not fire them. I also don’t work with the War Orders so I don’t determine where they go. The only thing I can see is that the sabre-rattling keeps some rogue or enemy nations at bay. Again this is just a semi-educated guess. I have seen documents but most of those documents where on theory, build and detail of the weapons themselves, not the EWO’s (war orders) of the specifics on the trajectories.

3. The concept of mutually assured destruction is important but the way I see it you exist in a couple of extremes. Either all the big countries have the weapons or none do. If none of them have the weapons then clearly you have no nuclear threat. On the other hand if they all do then you enter an eternal standoff (at least one hopes it stays that way) The problem is when you have one country who brings a shotgun to a fist fight. Who do they need to worry about? When only one country (-cough-America-cough-) has the weaponry they don’t have a lot of fear; at least not at that moment. We dropped 2 and never had to worry about instant retaliation. Frankly I am glad other countries have them now because we are forced to pull our talons back.

Now as far as education of the children.

You can have education without the extreme panic. At the MAFB Air Show we usually had a stand to give the general public an idea of how they work but of course anything classified or FOUO (official use only) was held back. I think there is actually a purpose to classification. Some people can know too much and when that occurs, emotion can enter into it. I’ve known a few things and it upset me. Imagine that on a much larger scale.

I look around at ATS and see paranoia, fear of TPTB and all the EOTWAWKI scenarios. Where does it all get you? Do you sleep better at night with anxiety that the government is out to get you? Why interrupt the few golden years the children have with fear? They will grow up and they will see the poop we are in now. Why scare them now?

Just the thoughts of a 2W2

take it as you will or leave it…no matter to me

-Kyo




[edit on 3-6-2010 by KyoZero]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   
You may be curious as to why I believe the atom bomb could be a big lie. I wouldn't call myself an atom bomb denier, but I have my suspicions. For example, the Japanese people were very much into photography even back in the mid 40s. The mushroom clouds from the supposed atom bombs over Nagasaki and Hiroshima would have been visible over long distances and for a long period of time. So where are all the amateur photos taken by the Japanese people? I have only seen like two or three dubious pictures of the mushroom clouds taken from the ground. Not to mention the films and photographs that professional media teams in Japan should have captured.

Plus, just after the war, an American flew over Tokyo and Hiroshima and said that the damage over both cities looked exactly the same! Why? Maybe because both those cities were firebombed, and not nuked.

Could the atom bomb be a big lie? An Above Top Secret lie?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join