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.

 

shouldn't we worry about a possible nuke being transported inter-state rather than into the US???

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 11:23 AM
link   
ANOK---

what the heck are you saying???





posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 12:43 PM
link   
there is speculation that the old soviets smuggled suitcase nukes into america during the cold war and hid them somewhere. all that would need happen was for one former soviet kgb person to sell the location to someone else??

something like more than 25 suitcase nukes are unaccounted for.

i just hope there isnt another attack, its going to mess up the entire world big time , probably lead to ww III.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dakuma
A sleeper cell could not build a nuke within the USA - no chance of that. That however is not the same as a sleeper cell being in possession of the oft mentioned suitcase nuke.

How can you be so sure? Why couldn't someone supply weapons grade uranium? That's the only thing that's not as easily obtained, is it not? Haven't there been kids who have built inoperable nukes, just to prove it could be done? I personally know someone who's built a fully funtional rail gun. Anything's possible, with the right supplies/contacts. Don't fool yourself.


Originally posted by TruthStrgnrThanFiction
i just hope there isnt another attack, its going to mess up the entire world big time , probably lead to ww III.

This is WWIII. You just don't know it yet. Many of us won't see a time of peace again, in our lifetime, I'm willing to bet.

[edit on 29-7-2004 by Damned]



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 01:30 PM
link   
damned---

you ARE right...

how can the "good guys" stop EVERY terrorists in the entire world???

how can the "good guys" say to the terrorists that their beliefs are NOT true and NOT worthy of dying for???

who knows...





posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by they see ALL
ANOK---

what the heck are you saying???



What I'm saying is I believe the threat of terrorism in the US is way overblown. Nothing has happend here since 9/11. Yet we are told on a daily basis by the powers that be that we could be attacked any second.
Then what are they waiting for?
Supposedly we are at war with the terrorists right?.
If you were a terrorist and and your comrades were being killed tortured and rounded up on a daily basis. Your country was undergoing an illegal occupation. If you were a terrorist and you had a suitcase nuke at your disposal wouldn't you have used it by now?
What are they waiting for, an invitation?
The powers that be are milking this to maximum effect. Yes the terrorists are in this country, it's called the government. These kind of government tactics are nothing new. Fear makes sheeple blindly follow those who claim to provide them safety. Yet if it surves their purpose we just become colateral duty. We are expendable. We are here to serve the ruling elites. To be used as they see fit. Things are not all warm and fuzzy. It's really no different than the days of land owners and serfes (sp?). It's just been modernised. Phsycological control. Once ppl start seeing through it is when you start seeing more physical control.
Those who see through the BS are ridiculed and dismissed as crazy (even happens right here on ATS). Some are put in mental institutions. Some are plain murdered. I've known ppl this has happened to.
One legendary example:
www.spunk.org...



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 08:39 PM
link   
ANOK---

i get it...

your CRAZY


JUST PLAYING


i ALSO have been thinking the way you are thinking and that is why i HATE bush





posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Certified


(I added this cause the forum said I was too short)



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Question 1, If a small to medium yield nuclear device were to explode in the center on New York you would probably be looking at a minumum of 500,000 deaths as a result of the initial blast and that number again from durns, radiation sickness etc.

Question 2, should this ever happen this event would go down in history as the biggest loss of life on the planet due to a single event.

Question 3, One million men, women and children are currently starving to death in Sudan. I do not see Mr Bush or Mr Blair looking too concerned about these people! just one percent of Americas defence budget would save these people from starvation and death! People should start to look at the real suffering in this world and not be too concerned about what might happen one day.


One last thought . One nuke = 1 million dead
One famine = 1 million dead

Whats the difference?



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 12:45 PM
link   
The difference would probably be too complex to list here UKOK, but one person cannot cause a famine by pressing a button. There are many factors to a famine, none of which are usually intentional malice, just failure of government and society. And the US has sent quite a bit of aid to regions hit by famine, and it has blown up in our face before (Somalia) but we will still help when needed, and Im sure we will jump into the Sudan situation soon, but it always seems that when it comes to being the "world police" the rest of the world despises us, but when help is truly needed, the world looks to us and says "so when are you gonna fix this?" Make up your minds world. Its just like the police here, we hate them when they give us tickets, but rely on them when we are in trouble and need help.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
...but it always seems that when it comes to being the "world police" the rest of the world despises us, but when help is truly needed, the world looks to us and says "so when are you gonna fix this?" Make up your minds world. Its just like the police here, we hate them when they give us tickets, but rely on them when we are in trouble and need help.

The problem is, along with the decision to police the world also comes the implied power to use force against anyone in the world, in order to enforce our rules. That pretty much equals world domination, does it not? I think everyone in the world sees that more clearly than Americans. We should've remained more isolationists. Instead, the largest corporations decided our foreign policy, for the most part. Money rules the world, and we'll destroy anyone who doesn't cooperate with our idea of how the money should flow. It's sickening, IMO.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by UKOK

Question 1, If a small to medium yield nuclear device were to explode in the center on New York you would probably be looking at a minumum of 500,000 deaths as a result of the initial blast and that number again from durns, radiation sickness etc.

Question 2, should this ever happen this event would go down in history as the biggest loss of life on the planet due to a single event.

Question 3, One million men, women and children are currently starving to death in Sudan. I do not see Mr Bush or Mr Blair looking too concerned about these people! just one percent of Americas defence budget would save these people from starvation and death! People should start to look at the real suffering in this world and not be too concerned about what might happen one day.


One last thought . One nuke = 1 million dead
One famine = 1 million dead

Whats the difference?


the difference is the people that could die in the nuke's case are more inportant than 1 million people dying a 100 miles away from me...

i am an american, and i care for my God first, me second, my family third, then my country and then any other people...

sry that is just the way i am...

i also live in NY...





posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Damned, the use of force to enforce law is the implied power of the police, if they could not use force, they would be useless. But I agree that we should turn in our badge, the ungratefulness of the world has inspired me to wish we were an isolationist country in theory, although a country cannot work that way anymore, look at North Korea. But I definetly feel we should not get involved in any other countries problems anymore, let genocide and famine run rampant. Its not worth American lives when it will be taken for granted and not appreciated, and if people from other countries happen to disagree with a certain policy, then we are branded the evil of the world, its not worth it.

[edit on 30-7-2004 by 27jd]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join