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.

 

Would The U.S. Be Impossible To Destroy?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2003 @ 06:32 PM
link   
If the United States was really about to be destroyed because too many countries were at war with it, wouldn't there be a massive amount of Americans signing up to be in the military? Cause I know that if the United States was going to be destroyed, I would join the military to defend the country.....

[Edited on 4-3-2003 by 10DeadInside10]




posted on Apr, 2 2003 @ 09:50 PM
link   
We'd simply use tactical nukes and take out the opposition wholesale. The lower radiation yields would be used in areas with neighboring enemies. I have no doubt that we could operate in 3 military theatres at once...4 would be difficult, but not impossible...more would certainly require the use of WOMD...to achieve the objectives.... As for the worry of others nuking us...if it came to that, I think they'd be in for a very big surprise when their targets are still standing, and pieces of their missile are falling from space....



posted on Apr, 2 2003 @ 10:00 PM
link   
couple of topol-m or satana nukes will stop usa
.
usa dont even have protection against it



posted on Apr, 2 2003 @ 10:11 PM
link   


I won't even ask what such a pro-soviet is doing in Isreal, hehe....

They're heyday kind of ended a decade or so ago, in case you missed it....



posted on Apr, 2 2003 @ 10:17 PM
link   
I guess you have never read much on HAARP have you?

We already have a fully functional, very effective and efficient missile defence system, in place and in operation since at least 1993, and likely before that. The continuing research into SDI/StarWars is a political cover to generate funds for other assorted "black ops".

In terms of "area defence", "theatre defence", "point defence" or "terminal defence" application effectiveness, I would point you towards what happened to the Columbia... Consider that Columbia was on a very representative course of an ICBM MIRV reentry profile. Had there been a nuclear warhead instead, it would have evaporated well above where it could have detonated, and even if it did detonate, it would have been harmless to any ground target.

Also consider that HAARP has the capability to destroy electronic systems on the other side of the planet. If the balloon were to go up, the vast majority of Russian and Chinese ICBMs would likely sit dormant in thier silos with thier ignition and guidance systems totally dead.



posted on Apr, 2 2003 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok


I won't even ask what such a pro-soviet is doing in Isreal, hehe....

They're heyday kind of ended a decade or so ago, in case you missed it....


you want to say that all of their nuke stockpiles and nuclear subs cant nuke you?

you know that they almost did nuke you in 95 because of some weather missile



Russia has violated every arms control treaty it has ever entered into including the START I Treaty
Russia possesses a nuclear arsenal totaling approximately 40,000 warheads. In contrast, the US arsenal consists of no more than 10,000 to 11,000 total warheads, down from 30,000 in 1991. Equally disturbing is that according to sworn testimony by former Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Energy and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, James Schlesinger to Congress in fall 1997, Russia continues to produce "thousands" of miniaturized nuclear warheads a year despite the fact that the US closed its nuclear production plants almost a decade ago.



posted on Apr, 2 2003 @ 10:24 PM
link   
However, in terms of destroying the US, it could easily be destroyed on an economic front (which is where our main weakness lies).

The reason we are fighting this war has nothing to do with obtaining the oil revenue (althought granted we will do so, and several pockets will be well lined by it, but that is a by product, not the main aim of the war). terrorism (a useful excuse), or WMD (although they likely do exist in Iraq... along with hundreds of other countries we know about).

The reason we are chasing this war is because Iraq is a threat in the only way that it really can pose a threat, and is a VERY bad threat in that form. Iraq, combine with Iran, has enough sway to force OPEC to vote on changing the oil standard currency from the US Dollar to the Euro. Doing so would in one day remove all hard asset backing to the US dollar (the gold standard has been so badly bastardized as to be useless now).

The result is that the US economy would crumble overnight, and the US would become a third world nation by the end of the week. We would likely look at the Great Depression of the 1930s with fondness, wishing things were that good....

We are persuing military action in Iraq in order to install a favorable (CIA controlled) government that would guarantee that those OPEC votes would never allow the Euro to be placed as oil standard currency.

This action also serves as notice/warning to Saudi Arabia, and other countries who may attempt to take similar measures.



posted on Apr, 2 2003 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonrider
I guess you have never read much on HAARP have you?

We already have a fully functional, very effective and efficient missile defence system, in place and in operation since at least 1993, and likely before that. The continuing research into SDI/StarWars is a political cover to generate funds for other assorted "black ops".

In terms of "area defence", "theatre defence", "point defence" or "terminal defence" application effectiveness, I would point you towards what happened to the Columbia... Consider that Columbia was on a very representative course of an ICBM MIRV reentry profile. Had there been a nuclear warhead instead, it would have evaporated well above where it could have detonated, and even if it did detonate, it would have been harmless to any ground target.

Also consider that HAARP has the capability to destroy electronic systems on the other side of the planet. If the balloon were to go up, the vast majority of Russian and Chinese ICBMs would likely sit dormant in thier silos with thier ignition and guidance systems totally dead.


In response to Washington's "Star Wars" initiative, Moscow developed "Russia's Missile and Nuclear Shield." The Russian government announced in 1998 the development of a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles, known as Topol-M (SS-27). These new single-warhead missiles (based in the Saratov region) are currently in "full combat readiness," against a "pre-emptive first strike" from the U.S., which (in the wake of September 11) constitutes the Pentagon's main assumption in an eventual nuclear war. "The Topol M is lightweight and mobile, designed to be fired from a vehicle. Its mobility means it is better protected than a silo-based missile from a pre-emptive first strike."
Following the adoption of the National Security Document (NSD) in 2000, the Kremlin confirmed that it would not exclude "a first-strike use" of nuclear warheads "if attacked even by purely conventional means."



posted on Apr, 2 2003 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Russia has violated every arms control treaty it has ever entered into including the START I Treaty Posted by Stranger

You think the CIA doesnt know this? You think the US doesnt already have counter measures in place? Why do you think HAARP was developed?

One little known (and denied) fact is that all MilStar satellites (the GPS transmitter satellites) also include radionucleide sensors that can track any significant amount of nuclear material on the surface, anywhere in the world. The US constantly tracks every nuclear device on the planet.



posted on Apr, 2 2003 @ 10:31 PM
link   
In response to Washington's "Star Wars" initiative, Moscow developed "Russia's Missile and Nuclear Shield." The Russian government announced in 1998 the development of a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles, known as Topol-M (SS-27). These new single-warhead missiles (based in the Saratov region) are currently in "full combat readiness," against a "pre-emptive first strike" from the U.S., which (in the wake of September 11) constitutes the Pentagon's main assumption in an eventual nuclear war. "The Topol M is lightweight and mobile, designed to be fired from a vehicle. Its mobility means it is better protected than a silo-based missile from a pre-emptive first strike." Posted by Stranger

Althought Topol would likely be a very dangerous weapon to counter, it is not a threat against CONUS. As stated above, all nuclear warheads are constantly tracked due to the surveillance of the MilStar constellation in geosyn orbit. In addition, the US DEWS system (both satellite and ground based) would detect and track any launch vehicals leaving the ground. Any such vehicals tracked carrying a warhead would likely be destroyed by HAARP before they left the atmosphere, while still over Soviet territory.



posted on Apr, 2 2003 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonrider
In response to Washington's "Star Wars" initiative, Moscow developed "Russia's Missile and Nuclear Shield." The Russian government announced in 1998 the development of a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles, known as Topol-M (SS-27). These new single-warhead missiles (based in the Saratov region) are currently in "full combat readiness," against a "pre-emptive first strike" from the U.S., which (in the wake of September 11) constitutes the Pentagon's main assumption in an eventual nuclear war. "The Topol M is lightweight and mobile, designed to be fired from a vehicle. Its mobility means it is better protected than a silo-based missile from a pre-emptive first strike." Posted by Stranger

Althought Topol would likely be a very dangerous weapon to counter, it is not a threat against CONUS. As stated above, all nuclear warheads are constantly tracked due to the surveillance of the MilStar constellation in geosyn orbit. In addition, the US DEWS system (both satellite and ground based) would detect and track any launch vehicals leaving the ground. Any such vehicals tracked carrying a warhead would likely be destroyed by HAARP before they left the atmosphere, while still over Soviet territory.



But isnt the missile can deploy a second stage, reach orbit and deploy for re-entry all below an altitude of several hundred miles and never come anywhere near the magnetosphere. Thus HAARP is no defense against it.



posted on Apr, 2 2003 @ 10:41 PM
link   
But isnt the missile can deploy a second stage, reach orbit and deploy for re-entry all below an altitude of several hundred miles and never come anywhere near the magnetosphere. Thus HAARP is no defense against it. Posted by Stranger

HAARP can effectively be used on surface level targets (and has been). Indeed, HAARP is capable of "ground wave" transmissions to any point on the planet, conducted through the upper mantle (a concept originated by Nikola Tesla in the 1880s).

Also, I would point out that all evidence points to a scalar weapon, originating in China, as being the cause for the destruction of Columbia. Evidence further suggests that Columbia was destroyed by just such a groundwave transmission, as the transmitter was on the opposite side of the planet.

Also, Columbia was at an approximate altitude of 200K feet, considerably below the magnetosphere.



posted on Apr, 2 2003 @ 11:41 PM
link   
I never thought i'd actually feel reassured at the thought of Russia having so many nukes. Hopefully this deterrence potential will stop the bush regime from further crimes!



posted on Apr, 2 2003 @ 11:48 PM
link   
I know this sounds really stupid and not totally believable, but this war is actually in the best interest of most all nations on the planet.

The reason I say this is because if the French/German/Russian agenda succeeded, not only would the American economy totally collapse, but much of the western world (as well as numerous third world contries who rely on the the US to support thier economies).

Such a chain of events would lead to a world wide economic meltdown far exceeding what happened in the 1930s. This in turn would likely lead to a full fledged WWIII, as something of that magnitude would be needed in order to turn the economy around. (This of course would cost far more lives than are being lost in Iraq right now).

The US doesnt seem to have any agressive tendencies toward any other nations other than those that pose a threat in terms of financial stability. For that reason, the main players likely to be affected by this are the rest of the OPEC nations, and possibly a few more Central/South American oil producing nations.



posted on Apr, 3 2003 @ 01:02 AM
link   
In what circumstance would the United States be able to be destroyed? (pray it never happens).....



posted on Apr, 3 2003 @ 01:32 AM
link   
An interesting question: in a nuclear and post-nuclear age, I suspect that a mass of draftees or volunteers is probably uncalled for.
If it's economic destruction (as was mentioned above), the US appears to be doing a tolerable job itself. If it's cultural destruction - let colleagues be the judges.
As for the military aspects: let us not forget what Americans spent on weaponry for 40 years until the collapse of the USSR precisely on the premise that the USA COULD be destroyed.



posted on Apr, 3 2003 @ 08:11 AM
link   
However, had to counter this...

"you want to say that all of their nuke stockpiles and nuclear subs cant nuke you?"

Well, if they could actually HIT...that's the thing. The reasons the Soviets made so many missiles, is because they couldn't hit their targets very well. Don't get me wrong, it was a good solution around the problem. However, aside from aging missiles, and lack of funds to continue the arms race in earnest, there are other defenses as well as the HAARP (which I'm still pretty "iffy" on), such as HELs that are ground, air, sea, and space-based....

I'm sure we could debate the US vs. USSR thing into the ground...so let's just agree on one thing....

I hope we never have to find out who's right and who's wrong....



posted on Apr, 3 2003 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Amen to that, Gazrok.
I'm less than iffy - totally incredulous, in fact - on HAARP as a mega-weapon ( yes there are certain facts that have been amply cut'n'pasted on ATS) ; and I suspect that much of the USSR's capability was exaggerated to justify military spending.
However, disagree or not, I'd repeat" Amen to that."



posted on Apr, 3 2003 @ 06:59 PM
link   
As for the military aspects: let us not forget what Americans spent on weaponry for 40 years until the collapse of the USSR precisely on the premise that the USA COULD be destroyed. Posted by Estragon

I will agree, this is a very good point. There are some very good reasons to justify such expenditures, even if the bulk of such weaponry is in effect obsolete compared to new systems currently online.

First of all would be scalability. A weapon that can sterilize an entire state would be of little use in a campaign such as is being fought in Iraq, where we are trying to be extremely selective. Therefore, continued R&D and manufacture is required.

Second of all, and likely most important, is the economics of it all. Weapons R&D and production has become a massive integral part in the US economy. It is a machine that feeds in and on itself. To discontinue it would adversely affect the economy. (I would argue to an extent that is why the US economy started going downhill in the late 90s, due to the severe military budget cuts by Clinton... remember the lag effect for such cuts to take effect, a la the Bush administration when it finally started to hurt). Continuing on this line of thought, it is required that some form of conflict or threat of conflict exist in order to justify expenditures for this subeconomy.

However, I will agree with the above thoughts, "A MEN", lets not find out.



posted on Apr, 3 2003 @ 07:27 PM
link   
while it would be a difficult task to invade and control the US it wouldn't necessarily be impossible. with the stock pile of nukes we do have i don't see it happening. perhaps if it did happen we could whip out a couple of these little babies. www.manuelsweb.com...
i've done a little reading on them. they are essentialy a radiation bomb that kills all organic life and leaves infrastructure intact. and the bonus is that the radiation dissipates rather quickly. these would be quite usefull for taking our an invading army as it is landing and then a month later we could go in and comandeer all their equipment thus making for more of a deterent of another invasion. i agree with a statement above about not living long enough to see this happening.

so the answer to the question is it possible? yes however highly unlikely, it would take a massive army to subdue a nation of 280 million armed citizens, i think i read that in my state of south dakota there is aprox. 2.5 guns per resident and believe me we know how to use them. i imagine the stats are the same for most mid western states.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join