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.

 

The First Nuclear War

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Secularist
 


How about this?
Classic song..

www.youtube.com...
Political science..
I'm just pleased he "Don't wanna hurt no kangaroos"


lol.

That song makes me think of Family Guy though, not nuclear bombs




posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by concernedcitizen519
 


Hi

Very disturbing , but fictional story. I do not believe China or the US are really that stupid.

By the way...

Did you know that there have been 2053 nuclear explosions already.... as a test.
If not read the following thread please ?

Nukes, Nukes and More Nukes!,


Of course I know of the test's, I'm well informed on this topic.
Yes it as a fictional story, however it seems plausible if you look at the current situation we're in. All it takes is one wrong move and you start something you can't go back from. It's a very complex game of chess and someone is waiting for the other to mess up.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by concernedcitizen519
 


especially the part where it mentions russia having a full nuke setup



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism

Originally posted by JonoEnglish
reply to post by concernedcitizen519
 


I totally agree. The more Countries that have them, the more chances there are of them being used.

Maybe we live in a time that people in the future will look back on in envy at what we had.



That is a false logic.

The less countries that have nuclear weapons, the more chances of nuclear usage.

Hence

Nukes will always be used against nations which don't have them, if everyone have nukes, then nukes will become obsolete.

It is not logical to use nukes against countries nations which can nuke you back


That's exactly right. Saddam didn't nuke the US when the US went in there twice shooting depleted uranium everywhere, which is classified as a WMD and banned by the UN (Gulf War had 350t of it deployed on Iraqis, current war had no such limits). The Serbians didn't nuke the US when the US-lead "peacekeeping" mission lead every air sortee armed with DU weapons. The Taliban didn't retaliate with dirty bombs when the US ousted their government with, you guessed it, DU.

People talk about North Korea being dangerous? They never nuked anyone. When was the last time they deployed WMD in combat? US does it all the time, and anyone who thinks depleted uranium is safe because the US military says so is probably half retarded. The US uses it on purpose as another dimension to holding an entire society down, because it certainly isn't beneficial for millions of potential Iraqi "insurgents" to be sick from radiological poisoning, and their next generation to be capable of even walking when they are born with extreme physical deformities.

So in conclusion, what does North Korea shelling a South Korean island have to do with nuclear war? I'm more concerned about Americans using nuclear weapons, whether they be nuclear bombs or depleted uranium. They have no regard for the fact that they've already turned Western Asia into a radiological wasteland that has affected not only millions of the people there, but also hundreds of thousands of their own soldiers. Nothing but pawns to the American political/corporate/military elite.
edit on 27-11-2010 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:59 AM
link   



People talk about North Korea being dangerous? They never nuked anyone. When was the last time they deployed WMD in combat? US does it all the time, and anyone who thinks depleted uranium is safe because the US military says so is probably half retarded. The US uses it on purpose as another dimension to holding an entire society down, because it certainly isn't beneficial for millions of potential Iraqi "insurgents" to be sick from radiological poisoning, and their next generation to be capable of even walking when they are born with extreme physical deformities.

So in conclusion, what does North Korea shelling a South Korean island have to do with nuclear war? I'm more concerned about Americans using nuclear weapons, whether they be nuclear bombs or depleted uranium. They have no regard for the fact that they've already turned Western Asia into a radiological wasteland that has affected not only millions of the people there, but also hundreds of thousands of their own soldiers. Nothing but pawns to the American political/corporate/military elite.
edit on 27-11-2010 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)


The US nukes countries all the time? This is what youre saying?

North Korea is not dangerous? This is what youre saying?

Got it..



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


I want to agree with you Sinter, but the thought process of Kim Pyongyang are very disturbing. There are some MSM's that are really looking at what is happening, as so many times before, Kim becomes defiant and irrational. the US knows it as well as China and Japan.
Here's an article that really sheds some light on the "Possible" implication's of these action's:


Is North Korea Moving Another 'Red Line'?

North Korea and South Korea exchanged artillery fire near their disputed border in the Yellow Sea/West Sea on Nov. 23. The incident raises several questions, not the least of which is whether Pyongyang is attempting to move the real “red line” for conventional weapons engagements, just as it has managed to move the limit of “acceptable” behavior regarding its nuclear program.

Read more: Is North Korea Moving Another 'Red Line'?


Source

It is a very interesting concept, may very well be true, but Kim is and always has been a real bugger for the western world and anyone he deems as an unfit society in his eye's.

"Really good thread though about all the nukes that have been tested!" I guess it is all food for thought over this issue...

edit on 023030p://5174 by Allred5923 because: URL link correction



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by concernedcitizen519
 


Good for you. Just trying to be informative.



The only possible way a nuclear war will come in to place is when a religious zealot is trying to speed up judgment day.

Seriously though. I think this topic is very interesting, but a lot of people will worry when they read this stuff.
Since it didn't happen ( yet ), it's not breaking news and it should be posted in Skunk works.

Did you think about the people that will go through hell because of this breaking news ?

Not being a jerk here and no reason to be offended. Just please consider other peoples reaction next time.


Ohh...

One more thing.

I've got the eerie feeling that in case of a nuclear conflict, the EU will be the first to perish. As I think it would be the logical step to take out the allies of your enemy.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Secularist
 


That's exactly what I'm saying, do you got it? Because I think there's too many people in this world who just don't get it and they believe the bullsh*t that they are told, allowing this travesty to continue... and then have the nerve to cry when things inevitably turn out bad and start blaming small nationalist countries who are only looking out for their own defense?

I wonder why countries like North Korea or Iran might want nuclear weapons. Could it be because they are evil bullies who want to dictate the world, or because they want protection from the real bully nations that dictate the world through violence like the US.

US says war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. I say anyone who believes the US government is extremely dangerous, and anyone who refuses to do anything about them doesn't deserve their place in a unified world order (WHICH IS NOT WHAT THE US IS KILLING PEOPLE FOR).



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by concernedcitizen519
 


Has anyone seen the relationship between a nuclear explosion and suicide?

I have looked at the two of world's highest suicide rates in the world, Belarus and Japan, guess what, they both had nuclear explosions. 2 nuclear bombs were dropped in Japan, and a nuclear explosion in Belarus which contaminated 99% of Belarus land.

The above being said, if a nuclear war starts, do you think the world suicide rates would sky rocket?



Actually Belarus got hit twice... Chernobyl also contaminated most of that country with nuclear crap...

Magnum



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by concernedcitizen519
 


In addition I must add that you can always back out from an situation. This stupid behavior that makes 2 sides want to wipe out each other instead . It's pride which is not one of our virtues.

An side who is willing to place death above a the loss of face should be getting their buts to a psychiatrist, and work on their minority complex.

Just my 2 cents

edit on 11/27/2010 by Sinter Klaas because: spelling... I know @@



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Magnum007
 


And, I wouldn't be surprised that all the nuclear testing in the pacific contaminated Japan a second time either... I would imagine that they (France, US, et als...) didn't take into consideration, or care, where the winds were blowing as long as it wasn't east...

Magnum



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


I screwed up with the link I provided with Stratford, here it is again. It is a really realistic look at what may be happening and for why.

Stratford

"Sorry for the mess up above guy's, didn't even check it out before I posted it, Preview, preview and preview!! LOL



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


Although I agree with the logic behind what you are saying, we have to remember that "politics" is not logical. When people make deals in a political way, it's not always, actually it never is the easiest and most logical solution. It's as if politicians sit down, look at each other, throw out logic, then come up with some retarded solution that makes no sense to anyone but them, the MSM (who twists it around and sells it to the people), and dumb people who believe everything that they are told...

Meanwhile, we "intelligent people" scratch our heads and say to ourselves : "Wouldn't it just be easier to just back off/let it go?"

Politics makes people powerful. Logic, reason and striving for what's right sets people up for assassination...

Magnum
edit on 10/11/27 by Magnum007 because: to edit last line for better effect



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Magnum007
 


You are probably right, but i think this is caused by looking for solutions that will only make the effects of the problem go away. If They would solve 5the source of the problem for once.... Maybe we would see something positive happening.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 04:21 AM
link   
You know what I'm not sure about in the article. It talks about how if North Korea used nuclear artillery on South Korean forces and U.S. forces in South Korea the American people would be out for blood and calling for war. I really don't think so. I'm not so sure we can be roused to that patriotism and led to war again like we were after 9/11. We are tired of it. At least I'd like to think the whole U.S. is.

Also if North Korea used nuclear missiles China would be down their throats. They wouldn't stand for that. War sure, nuclear war no.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


The symptoms are always easier to get rid of than the disease; another aspect of politics that actually makes things worse.

The thing that makes me the most angry, I think, is this : they wait, they wait they wait, they talk (about nothing), and they talk again 6 months later, they "strongly condemn" publicly, they call for "sanctions"... Blah Blah Blah...

For example, if it were up to me to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem I would put the leaders of the 2 sides in a room and never let them out until they find a solution and agreement to their problems. They would talk, eat, sleep, and do everything together until they are done... But "political logic" says otherwise... You meet here, then 8 months later there, then 9 months later somewhere else... How will that solve anything?

Another problem is that countries don't get involved politically until it's too late and the only viable option is military intervention. It's also cost effective (stimulates the economy, creates jobs, etc...) so it makes that option so much more "appealing"...

What can I say? I hate politics, I'm a straight shooter...
edit on 10/11/27 by Magnum007 because: I wanted to fix something



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by concernedcitizen519
 


In addition I must add that you can always back out from an situation. This stupid behavior that makes 2 sides want to wipe out each other instead . It's pride which is not one of our virtues.

An side who is willing to place death above a the loss of face should be getting their buts to a psychiatrist, and work on their minority complex.

Just my 2 cents

edit on 11/27/2010 by Sinter Klaas because: spelling... I know @@

See this is what I'm worried about because the Chinese society has high values and do fight 'till the death. I'm sure you're right about cooler heads prevailing and the situation being dialed down, but people can do crazy things when backed into a corner, and THAT'S when things start to get really interesting.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


2 nukes dropped on a country who chose to start a war with the US. The high suicide rate in Japan is because of the pressures in their society to constantly achieve, and where any failure results in fhame and Dishonor.

As far as Belarus goes I am not sure what you are referring to. If you are talking about Chernobyl it ws in Ukraine. Belarus, along with Ukraine and Russia evacuated large groups of people from the heavily contaminated areas. Not sure how that is linked to a high suicide rate either. I would chalk it up to living under communist rule.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 
Bout time somebody made that observation.

If we all have the same weapons,doing things that may bring like retaliation more likely won't happen.

It's just a "Bully Game".

Gimme your milk money runt!.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by oozyism

Originally posted by JonoEnglish
reply to post by concernedcitizen519
 


I totally agree. The more Countries that have them, the more chances there are of them being used.

Maybe we live in a time that people in the future will look back on in envy at what we had.



That is a false logic.

The less countries that have nuclear weapons, the more chances of nuclear usage.

Hence

Nukes will always be used against nations which don't have them, if everyone have nukes, then nukes will become obsolete.

It is not logical to use nukes against countries nations which can nuke you back


That's exactly right. Saddam didn't nuke the US when the US went in there twice shooting depleted uranium everywhere, which is classified as a WMD and banned by the UN (Gulf War had 350t of it deployed on Iraqis, current war had no such limits). The Serbians didn't nuke the US when the US-lead "peacekeeping" mission lead every air sortee armed with DU weapons. The Taliban didn't retaliate with dirty bombs when the US ousted their government with, you guessed it, DU.

People talk about North Korea being dangerous? They never nuked anyone. When was the last time they deployed WMD in combat? US does it all the time, and anyone who thinks depleted uranium is safe because the US military says so is probably half retarded. The US uses it on purpose as another dimension to holding an entire society down, because it certainly isn't beneficial for millions of potential Iraqi "insurgents" to be sick from radiological poisoning, and their next generation to be capable of even walking when they are born with extreme physical deformities.

So in conclusion, what does North Korea shelling a South Korean island have to do with nuclear war? I'm more concerned about Americans using nuclear weapons, whether they be nuclear bombs or depleted uranium. They have no regard for the fact that they've already turned Western Asia into a radiological wasteland that has affected not only millions of the people there, but also hundreds of thousands of their own soldiers. Nothing but pawns to the American political/corporate/military elite.
edit on 27-11-2010 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)


America doesnt use nuclear bombs - were the ones that strive to prevent such a catastrophe and we dont need nuclear supremacy to win wars. You sound paranoid and you would rather side with a dictatorship like the DPRK or Iran then with America. Gotcha...



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join