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.

 

Is America Considering the Use of Nuclear Weapons in Libya?...

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
"[The] Air Force would use the B61-11 [nuclear weapon] against Libya's alleged underground chemical weapons plant at Tarhunah if the President decided that the plant had to be destroyed. 'We could not take [Tarhunah] out of commission using strictly conventional weapons,' Smith told the Associated Press. The B61-11 'would be the nuclear weapon of choice,' he told Jane Defence Weekly. (The Nuclear Information Project: the B61-11)

"Even before the B61 came on line, Libya was identified as a potential target". (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - September/ October 1997, p. 27). (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, America's Planned Nuclear Attack on Libya, March 2011)

While the 1996 plan to bomb Libya using tactical nuclear weapons was subsequently shelved, Libya was not removed from the "black list": "The Qadhafi regime" remains to this date a target country for a pre-emptive (defensive) nuclear attack. As revealed by William Arkin in early 2002, "The Bush administration, in a secret policy review... [had] ordered the Pentagon to draft contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against at least seven countries, naming not only Russia and the "axis of evil" Iraq, Iran, and North Korea but also China, Libya and Syria. (See William Arkin, "Thinking the Unthinkable", Los Angeles Times, 9 March 2002).

www.scoop.co.nz...

U.S's planned attack on Libya:
globalresearch.ca...



Appears to be a plan almost 2 decades in the making...




posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Good man, ive read this stuff before, about a memo that some ex general saw come from the Bush administration about virtually invading every middle eastern country with oil or any natural resource, Its just more proof to add to the pile of 'Proof condeming Nazi Satanist Freemasons ruling America'



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


I think the US leaders would be making a HUGE mistake if they nuked another country..
The citizens are already waking up to these endless wars..
How could they then demand other countries NOT have nuclear programs?



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
interesting...sandf

IMHO
They are already using DU in Libya
That IS nuclear war

look at the children of Fallujah
educate-yourself.org...



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


Why not some large distributing EMP device that harms no one?



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Thats insane. Thanks for sharing
there has got to be a better way!



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
if they nuke a country so close to europe, i doubt they will get that much needed support from the uk et al.. any more.
plus we have enough radiation in the atmosphere at the moment so i would say this story is not something that will come to fruition.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
America will use anything they can get a hold of, thats their nature.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


some say that Depleted Uranium ordinance is whats behind Gulf War Syndrome ....



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 





Why not some large distributing EMP device that harms no one?


How is that going to damage a chemical / biological weapons plant that might have stockpiles of said materials? sadly, a small yield tactical nuke would probably be the best option, destroy the plant and remove any chemical dangers.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


Yes use the nuclear device to spread radiation and chemicals in the atmosphere. Very low risk huh?

All nukes should be disarmed. Everywhere. Starting with America. We will never progress as a species if we are held back by devices of terror.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by spoonbender
 





some say that Depleted Uranium ordinance is whats behind Gulf War Syndrome ....


That coupled with the cocktail of drugs the soldiers were given. Depleted Uranium ordinance is used for 2 purposes really, first, it's heavy, extremely dense, and can penetrate much better than standard ordinance. Second, it's a nice easy method to get rid of a bunch of radioactive waste, which is what it is. It's no good for fission fuel, but it's still deadly and hard to get rid of. Why not rain it down on your enemy of choice?

We have never been at war with east asia
We have always been at war with east asia

If you, any of you, honestly think the US department of Defense doesn't have plans tabled or shelved to deal with every perceived threat already, you are fooling yourself.

Afghanistan invasion plans were what, 10 years old? Same with Iraq, they were planning long in advance to go back there. I'm not surprised at all.

This is US foreign policy, and has been for some time. Maybe if enough people get this type of information, at the critical time, it might just make a difference.

Regardless of what the media plays, the tune today is the US is losing it's grip on the world, they can no longer just bully and threaten, their hand is being forced, they have to take proactive measures or the jig is up. Nations that once would have never dared go against the US are seeing a country crippled with recession and several wars on several fronts in it's death throws. Proving to these potential "rogue" nations that the US will step up and nuke a bunch of civilians to further their goals, might just be the reasoning behind a strike like this.

Flex that muscle or lose it.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by TripleSalCal
 





Yes use the nuclear device to spread radiation and chemicals in the atmosphere. Very low risk huh?


No, a small yield tactical nuke, or bunker buster, that would penetrate down into the plant and destroy it, vaporizing the weapon stockpiles, all of which takes place under ground with negligible radioactive/chemical release.




[The] Air Force would use the B61-11 [nuclear weapon] against Libya's alleged underground chemical weapons plant at Tarhunah


Seriously, that's a cut and dry plan already on the books. i'm not saying it's the answer, but I am saying it is a logical choice given the circumstances.
edit on 12-4-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
S&F

You would think that since America is beginning to wake up to the reality of the endless wars and manipulation, that now is not a good time for the elite to nuke other countries through America.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


How would it penetrate the ground and not release some sort of emission into the air? And if not the atmosphere then there would definitely be something in the ground. I highly doubt that we have a nuclear device that would just magically only vaporize this underground facility and not break out of that containment. We must know the exact specs of the building?



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


Shuts down all electricity, prevents launches ect. Un no this war with projectiles is wild to me, they are never precise and always kill innocent...
edit on 4/12/11 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 


They can shut down the electricity by taking out the power generation station with conventional warheads if that was the case. Plus a facility like a bio weapons facility is going to have back up power generation, and being underground would help minimize the effects of an EMP.
I think the true intent of a nuclear warhead is to completely vaporize the facility and eliminate the target and building without the risk of spreading biological agents into the atmospere. I assume the consequences of radiation is less than biological fall out.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 





Shuts down all electricity, prevents launches ect. Un no this war with projectiles is wild to me, they are never precise and always kill innocent...


Yes this stops the facility, for the time being, but doesn't destroy the facility or any stockpiles.




How would it penetrate the ground and not release some sort of emission into the air? And if not the atmosphere then there would definitely be something in the ground. I highly doubt that we have a nuclear device that would just magically only vaporize this underground facility and not break out of that containment. We must know the exact specs of the building?


We'd need to know how deep and fortified. Just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they don't exist:


Bunker-busting nuclear weapons, also known as earth-penetrating weapons (EPW), are a type of nuclear weapon designed to penetrate into soil, rock, or concrete to deliver a nuclear warhead to a target. These weapons would be used to destroy hardened, underground military bunkers buried deep in the ground. In theory, the amount of radioactive nuclear fallout would be reduced from that of a standard, air-burst nuclear detonation because they would have relatively low explosive yield. However because such weapons necessarily come into contact with large amounts of earth-based debris, they may, under certain circumstances, still generate fallout. Warhead yield and weapon design have changed periodically throughout the history of the design of such weapons. In general, these weapons deliver more "useful" destruction because unlike air bursts, the energy yield does not dissipate into the air.


Source

there's nothing magical about it. Limited release, under the right conditions, is still preferable to allowing the enemy to deploy the weapons. Again, I'm not arguing for this or against us, just pointing out that it is a logical potential choice.

A bunker buster would have a small yield warhead. It penetrates deep into the bunker environment, and then detonates. The only real concern is the depth so as to time the device, I have no clue how they are timed. The explosion would destroy the facility and fuse or destroy any weapons stockpiles, all in 1 hit. I believe this was on the table in Iraq.


edit on 12-4-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-4-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-4-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-4-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-4-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


I would not approve of the use of any form of nuclear device, however there is a factor in this situation that does give purpose to it's use. It isn't just for fun....

If you drop standard ordinaces, such as bunker busting munitions, you can hit the site and damage the compound and weapons within. However, what happens to the chemicals? Anuclear device would have the heat needed to seal weapons casings or to destroy chemicals that released by the damage done to their casings.



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Great thread. I saw the title and thought to myself "more ATS fear-mongering
" but then I read the article!

I imagine the US would only actually do this if WMD was used against them or an ally - the backlash from a preemptive nuclear strike would be off the scale. For example, if Ghaddafi feels he's reached the end of the line and starts throwing mustard gas around in a last ditch effort, then the US would feel justified in taking out any production facilities.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join