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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2003 @ 07:32 PM
link   
for those that read my posts i've said it like a 10000000000000 times the big threat is china every time you buy a plastic toy from china some of that money is taxed and used to buy weapons which will one day be used against us
dam greedy capitalist CEO's




posted on Apr, 3 2003 @ 07:56 PM
link   
How do you fire 2.5 guns? More seriously, the old neutron bomb was a very awful thing and there's a certain grotesque irony in the current war aim of not hurting people and destroying buildings (the opposite, 15-20 years later).
Which tends to make me endorse the sound points about US domestic armaments industries posted above.
And let's hope we never find out.



posted on Apr, 3 2003 @ 07:57 PM
link   
...an enemies most exploitable weakness is thier belief they have none...



posted on Apr, 3 2003 @ 08:04 PM
link   
Hi, falcon: wrong thread, I know; but I do like the China points. I have to tell you that central government here finds it incredibly difficult to collect any taxes off anybody!
Last year's figures show that the whole PRC raised less than Los Angeles and in business, there's a wonderful system whereby you "negotiate" your tax.
When you buy a Chinese plastic toy, you're putting up real estate prices in Vancouver.



posted on Apr, 3 2003 @ 08:28 PM
link   
well all i can say is im glad america is on our side. heres a question though if every country had the same amount of weapons, soldiers etc. which do you think would be the easiest to defend? Australia??



posted on Apr, 4 2003 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Almost anything is possible... I mean the U.S. could be defeted... But most likely we will continue or rein of terror...



posted on Apr, 5 2003 @ 05:34 AM
link   
but the russians also got haarp, and anyways you with your haarp and hocus pocus laser technology cant even take on a 3rd world state


[Edited on 5-4-2003 by $tranger]



posted on Apr, 5 2003 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Stranger - What do you mean we can't take on a 3rd world country? We took out Afghanistan in a couple months, something the Soviets couldn't do in a decade.

I firmly believe the U.S. would be the toughest to invade. Simply because of our lax gun laws. Do you have any clue how many people around here have guns? EVERYONE has a gun.



posted on Apr, 5 2003 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dangerous_Brian
Stranger - What do you mean we can't take on a 3rd world country? We took out Afghanistan in a couple months, something the Soviets couldn't do in a decade.

I firmly believe the U.S. would be the toughest to invade. Simply because of our lax gun laws. Do you have any clue how many people around here have guns? EVERYONE has a gun.


guns cant stop a nuke



posted on Apr, 5 2003 @ 09:08 AM
link   
guns cant stop a nuke Posted by Stranger

You are correct. You are also correct that Russia has scalar weapons, along with China, Japan, Australia, the UK, Israel, and several others.

Which is why any war between the US and Russia probably WONT be nuclear, but scalar in nature. First of all, HAARP would likely be used on both sides preemtively to "dud" the opposing sides nukes in thier silos and launchers (along with every other electronic system, effectively plunging humanity back to the middle ages).

If one or the other side decided to take things to the most extreme, it is possible to fire HAARP in a mode tuned to wavelengths that affect the human brain. With enough power behind it, it is possible to paralyze, or totally shut down the human brain, killing everyone over a very wide area.

Given an even further extreme, it is possible to further tune HAARP to deliver a transmission that will break and shutdown the common electro-chemical reactions that power all basic life functions for all carbon based lifeforms. This would kill ALL life, down to the level of bacteria, effectively sterilizing an entire continent if the operators deemed to do so (it has been done on a small scale).



posted on Apr, 5 2003 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Stranger - No 3rd world country has enough nukes to destroy the U.S.

The only other country with enough to pound us into oblivion(although, with mutually assured destruction) is Russia.



posted on Apr, 6 2003 @ 08:13 PM
link   

We took out Afghanistan in a couple months, something the Soviets couldn't do in a decade.



lol.. because no one helped them like you did when russia was in a fight with them!

they were fighting with homemade ak's against you.



posted on Apr, 6 2003 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Actually the anti-missile system designed to protect against ICBMs launched against the US (you know the ones the US designed to actually hit an ICBM), can be loaded with an Atomic warhead. In such a case it would not actually have to hit the ICBM just get in front of it.

Once it detonated the enemy ICBM would be atomized in the fireball. Any attack against the US from anywhere could be addressed in this way. And when it is over this country would still have all of its ICBMs locked and loaded.

Consider that as the US version of a Nuclear Shield

In the case of multiple attacks its become a matter of maintaining the shield. By continuously firing the aforementioned weapon/missiles until the enemy runs out of weapons.

Responding to submarine attacks could be accomplished in the same way. And as far as bombers, well



For the sake of argument if you ever were to succeed in
attacking the US with weapons of mass destruction guess what you would be eating??

Each other.



posted on Apr, 7 2003 @ 08:41 AM
link   
stranger - get real, we had help, but don't think for a moment we couldn't have done it ourselves.

I'm still waiting for your 3rd world country with enough nukes to destroy the United States




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join