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.

 

How much time is left?

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by America?
I know I'm probably gona catch some flak for this, but I personally believe something of significance that will have profound effects on how we will live will happen soon. The more I look around it seems to me the boiling point will be reached soon. I am asking this as a serious question, "How much time do you think we have left?"


2011, 2012, or 2013...all i can say, is im scared.

What kind of serious things are you getting at? Like ET revealed kinda stuff, or bad stuff like NWO?

Anyways, good thread, i love speculating the future



posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by 8fl0z
 


Anything serious in that it has global consequences.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 02:42 AM
link   
I don't know but I'll be seriously pissed that I decided to start saving more money if this 2012 thing really goes down.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by realeyes
I don't know but I'll be seriously pissed that I decided to start saving more money if this 2012 thing really goes down.


Money wont even have any worth in a post apocalyptic world man...if 99% of the population was killed for some reason or another, that would leave approximately 70 million people on Earth. The US has some 350Mil. citizens at any given time, and look how much land we take up. 70 million people, spread through the world, i doubt anyone would be caring about mony. Just sayin.



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by lynxlynx
 


I just went to Cleverbot..............

Question: "How much time do we have left?"

Reply: "Just a couple of months." (Boy I hope that one's wrong)

I also asked "Are you a actual person keyboarding the answers or AI"

Reply: "Person"

Question: "Have a lot of people that contact Cleverbot, expressed a concern for World War 3?

Reply: "No not really".

Very interesting site.

Sort of like those rolly balls girls used at slumber parties, you ask a question and roll the ball with a plastic window and mucky water and a answer would pop up.



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by realeyes
 


Me too. I've bought a bunch of T Notes for my grand daughter's college education and all our debts are almost all paid off except for our Townhouse and house house.

Got my garden ready for next spring.
House painted
Deck sealed
Almost ready for winter

All you can do is live one day at a time.

I've been watching videos on how like a nuclear war could get started and the most likely senerio is "communication break down" where as a "accident" happens and the other side doesn't realize it's a "oops sorry wrong button" type of thing and they push their buttons and then we push more of our buttons and so on.

This site was real interesting: carolmoore.net... - but maybe don't read it if you're feeling anxious right now.


A world nuclear war is one that involves most or all nuclear powers releasing a large proportion of their nuclear weapons at targets in nuclear, and perhaps non-nuclear, states. Such a war could be initiated accidentally, aggressively or pre-emptively and could continue and spread through these means or by retaliation by a party attacked by nuclear weapons. While some speak of "limited nuclear war," it is likely that any nuclear war will quickly escalate and spiral out of control because of the "use them or loose them" strategy. If you don't use all your nuclear weapons you are likely to have them destroyed by the enemy's nuclear weapons.
Such a war could start through a reaction to terrorist attacks, or through the need to protect against overwhelming military opposition, or through the use of small battle field tactical nuclear weapons meant to destroy hardened targets. It might quickly move on to the use of strategic nuclear weapons delivered by short-range or inter-continental missile or long-range bomber. These could deliver high altitude bursts whose electromagnetic pulse knocks out electrical circuits for hundreds of square miles. Or they could deliver nuclear bombs to destroys nuclear and/or non-nuclear military facilities, nuclear power plants, important industrial sites and cities. Or it could skip all those steps and start through the accidental or reckless use of strategic weapons.
Below are seven scenarios by which world nuclear war could come about. While these are some of the major scenarios and combination of attacks and retaliations, they are hardly exhaustive. U.S., Russian and other nuclear nations' weapons strategizers deal with these scenarios every day but rarely let mere citizens in on their grizzly thinking. Citizens must end their denial and become aware of such scenarios.


GENERAL SCENARIOS

Accidental: Since the United States and Russia have "launch on warning" systems that send off rockets before it is confirmed a nuclear attack is underway, any tensions between them can lead to massive nuclear war within thirty minutes of a warning -- no matter how false the warning may be.

Aggressive: One or more nations decides to use weapons against nuclear or non-nuclear nations in order to promote an economic, political or military goal, as part of an ongoing war or as a first strike nuclear attack. (The state , of course, may claim it is a pre-emptive, retaliatory or even accidental attack.)

Pre-emptive: One or more nations believes (correctly or incorrectly) or claims to believe that another nuclear nation is about to use nuclear weapons against its nuclear, military, industrial or civilian targets and pre-emptively attacks that nation. May result from political or military "brinkmanship."

Retaliatory: Use of nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack -- or even a conventional, chemical or biological attack by a non-nuclear nation.


ASSUMPTIONS OF THESE SCENARIOS
There is a whole body of knowledge and assumptions that is taken into account when putting together scenarios like the below. My bottom line assumption is that any nuclear exchange has an excellent chance of resulting in a series of escalations that will spiral out of control, setting off a round of exchanges among various enemies under a "use it or lose it" philosophy, as well as among the treaty allies of the relevant nuclear powers and their allies. This continues until most of the planets' 20,000 odd nuclear weapons are exhausted. In making "limited nuclear war" calculations all nations should assume "whatever can go wrong, will go wrong." Unfortunately, too many strategizers assume they can conduct limited strikes and keep them limited.
Related assumptions include:
** Any nuclear attack on a primary Russian target like Moscow, St. Petersburg, or nuclear command headquarters, by any nation or group, known or unknown, could lead to a commander turning on "The Dead Hand" strategy and/or prompt one or more of Russia’s semi-autonomous military field commanders to retaliate against U.S. and European nuclear targets. Attacks on secondary targets or nuclear detonations very close to Russian soil also might lead to some sort of nuclear escalation.
** Any nuclear attack on US and/or European sites by any nation or group, known or unknown, probably will result in massive US and/or European retaliation against the known or assumed perpetrators or their known or assumed allies.
** It is likely that the U.S., Russia, China, Israel, India and Pakistan will use some of their weapons to attack other nuclear and non-nuclear nations which might threaten them after they have been devastated by nuclear war.
** Any nuclear attack on Israel by terrorists, or Pakistan, Russia or China will result in Israel’s surviving land, air and submarine carried or based missiles being used against Arab and Muslim capitals. A particularly devastating attack (including with chemical or biological weapons) might result in possibly in a full scale "Samson Option" attack on European and Russian targets. The latter of course would result in Russian retaliation against the United States, perhaps its punishment for not having done enough to protect Israel.
** Any nation's use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear nation will be only somewhat less inflammatory than using them against a nuclear nation, especially if that nation has many treaty allies. It will ratchet all nuclear nations alert systems and lead to unforeseeable consequences that could easily spiral to world nuclear war.

Source listed above


The article goes on to describe each of the senerios.






edit on 30-9-2010 by ofhumandescent because: punctuation and added stuff.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by America?
 


I feel it too. A lot of people seem to be changing their ways now. On a side note, when I read your post I had a sudden realisation that everyone would experience the change at a different time. As in when they're at the point in their life's journey where they're ready to make the change and that it could theoretically work with existence of parallel realities. But.. that's just what popped into my head. It feels right though. I'll stick with it until I can disprove the theory.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join