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.

 

SDI defence on Greenland!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 10:41 PM
link   
I would like to hear your opinion on the program called SDI, there is currently negotiations between Denmark, Greenland and USA to put this so-called missile shield on one of our islands, what do you think of that?
Should we protest in Denmark and Greenland against our government?
People all ready are off course but i would like to hear the foreigners views on this. (or any domestics if thatís the case)

Will this SDI defense help the world peace or will it just protect Europe and America, while the big USofA launches all it missiles on the rest of the world?

Baron Bilbo Baggins
Bilbo's Empire of the Neutral Zone

[edit on 29-8-2004 by NeonHelmet]




posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 10:57 PM
link   
I've always wanted to visit Godthaab. It seems like a very interesting place with a rich history of viking settlements and history. Back to your question though, I don't think they really need to arm Greenland. Britain would suffice, as would Newfound Land. There would be a bigger public outcry of course, so maybe this is the reason - minimum disclosure and talk.



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Well actually never thought of it that way, I was told by our government that it had something to do with its position( it could cover most of Europe and America with one system), we have big egos here in Denmark could have been because you like us and we are great to hang around.
But I will settle for the less noise theory for now.


Bilbo



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by NeonHelmet


Will this SDI defense help the world peace or will it just protect Europe and America, while the big USofA launches all it missiles on the rest of the world?

Baron Bilbo Baggins
Bilbo's Empire of the Neutral Zone

[edit on 29-8-2004 by NeonHelmet]


Since the SDI shield cannot prevent a full on nuclear attack, it does not threaten MAD (mutually assured destruction) which is the basis for nuclear detterent. The fact is that this shield will protect the US and Europe from an Iran/N. Korea attack, because they likely would have very few missles to launch.

Over all, I don't see a problem with it - it's not like the US is suddenly just going to go nuke everyone once this shield is put up. Then again, look at my name and you might get the sense that I am a bit one sided



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by NeonHelmet
I would like to hear your opinion on the program called SDI, there is currently negotiations between Denmark, Greenland and USA to put this so-called missile shield on one of our islands, what do you think of that?


Would make you a target-
are you a target now?

Do people in Greenland like the US so very much they want a target painted outside Nuuk (Godthab)?

Well, here's the REAL reason:
    coal,
    iron ore,
    lead,
    zinc,
    molybdenum,
    gold,
    platinum,
    uranium,
    fish, seals, whales, hydropower, possible oil and gas

I wonder- is there any nickel there?

You only have around 60,000 people, an influx of 5,000 horny Americans would boost the economy?

Look up the history of the Phillipines or Puerto Rico- those were strategic defense initiatives also.

SDI is so incredibly expensive unless the US starts whacking forests to make paper for money I can't see it being paid for- not with the current deficit..



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Sure, the missile shield can be paid for regardless of the deficit. Considering those in power of the west merely borrow money from themselves, anything is possible. As far as the West launching on the rest of the world, that makes little sense. Any particualr reason why you fear that might happen? I surely know of no good reason.

AS far as MAD, that was a condition between the U.S. and a now defunct Soviet Union, it was not a contract between the U.S. and every stupid little madman with a handful of nuclear weapons. If one would suggest that it is a good thing that a lunatic like North Korea's leader could develope his arsenal to match that of the West's, somebody needs to explain how that could be. There is a difference between a nation of laws and a nation ruled by a despotic mandman.

So, in short, no. There is no good reason to protest. Just enjoy the influx of American cash. Yes, you are quite welcome, and I, too, would like to come and visit one day.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 03:58 PM
link   


Over all, I don't see a problem with it - it's not like the US is suddenly just going to go nuke everyone once this shield is put up. Then again, look at my name and you might get the sense that I am a bit one sided




Would make you a target-
are you a target now?

Do people in Greenland like the US so very much they want a target painted outside Nuuk (Godthab)?

Well, here's the REAL reason:
coal,
iron ore,
lead,
zinc,
molybdenum,
gold,
platinum,
uranium,
fish, seals, whales, hydropower, possible oil and gas

I wonder- is there any nickel there?

You only have around 60,000 people; an influx of 5,000 horny Americans would boost the economy?

Look up the history of the Philippines or Puerto Rico- those were strategic defence initiatives also.

SDI is so incredibly expensive unless the US starts whacking forests to make paper for money I can't see it being paid for- not with the current deficit..




So, in short, no. There is no good reason to protest. Just enjoy the influx of American cash. Yes, you are quite welcome, and I, too, would like to come and visit one day.



Well we are in the coalition that made us a target, but the threat of terror is small, we are a small country and we do have lots of Middle Eastern refugees, we would still spot them dong something suspicious, like ordering huge quantities of fertilizer or what ever.
Well I do fear you nukes because, well you will agree on this they are bad weapons they have nothing to do with war, and you just push a button and then GENOCIDE.
We are a target now, though they have a hard time telling the difference between Norway and Denmark, *LOL* after the invasion of Iraq, Norway got an official Taliban threat, but here is the funny part they never went to Iraq.
So our intelligence agencies assumed it was meant for us.
Actually the residents or natives of Greenland donít like you, after the Thule incident you are not popular, neither is our government because they didnít make you cough up with money for the damages witch still are there, our government did it in the interest of future US relations, this is also why they allowed the Thule base there in the first place.
I also think the reason for our government to be pro American is because of the Danes animosity for the European Union, we donít like countries to tell us what to do, but we do need trade allies.

coal,
iron ore,
lead,
zinc,
molybdenum,
gold,
platinum,
uranium,
fish, seals, whales, hydropower, possible oil and gas

Well these resources belong to Greenland and Denmark and the US isnít going to touch them, they can try but we will just go Viking on their puny hides *LOL*

The problem with Greenland isnít the economy, well it is but it isnít the biggest problem, you have to remember they were originally a hunter gatherer society and now, well problems like violence, drinking, sexual assaults, negligence and getting to many children they cant take care of is also a big problem. The money the Danish government spend on Greenland can be compared to a large Danish city, and compared to all the resources and the strategic point of the island well I think itís well worth it.

Bilbo

[edit on 30-8-2004 by NeonHelmet]



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Our nukes have ensured that there would not be any large scale wars or genocide, sir. Two nuclear weapons have been used since the creation of atomic weaponry, and those two saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

Nuclear weapons obviously do have something to do with war, other than preventing them. There are many types of nuclear weapons, from small, artillery delivered battlefield rounds, to those that are delivered by ICBM. They are all about either preventing war or obtaining victory were a war of such scale be brought to us.

That, however, is the key, if war is brought to us. Do not fall prey to unwarranted fear.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeonHelmet
Will this SDI defense help the world peace or will it just protect Europe and America, while the big USofA launches all it missiles on the rest of the world?


The level of ignorance about the missile shield is positivly shocking. The sheild will only defend against a small scale attack by a rouge nation. The US cannot launch its nukes and then pick off say a Russian counterattack. A large scale attack will saturate the defences and the whole globe will pay. Even if we could pick off all of a retalitory strike, we would ALL eventually sucumb to the nightmare of a nuclear winter. The scenario of the US sitting all warm and cozy behind its sheild while it nukes the world is just peacenik propaganda on the scale of the girl in the field commerical that Jhonson used against Goldwater.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 05:41 PM
link   
First of I didnít imply that I didnít like the Americans or didnít wanted them as my allies I am a professional soldier and have my opinion of you, there are many things I donít like about you, but I can see the benefit from all the good you do have.
Yes nukes have only been used two times, and thatís by you in Japan.
I have seen the effect of our uranium ammunition first hand, I have colleagues who where made sick by them. So please donít tell me how good that is, also I know that the SDI only protect us from a few missiles, but that is not my point, my point is we are adding more nukes to this world.
Personally I am not defending the protesters but I can see what they mean. I think they should go for it. (Build it on Greenland and our government and society can score big time, in economic support and so fourth.)
I know they are a detergent, they are not meant to be used, but that doesnít make me feel safer, a soldier cant do squat about a nuke, true we can dig a hole and take on our ABC suit but hell if we cant take it off and cant drink the water or eat the food then is this really to do anything, other than postpone it for a month, two months?
I am not saying that you should throw out all you nukes at least not when the world looks as it does now!



The level of ignorance about the missile shield is positively shocking. The shield will only defend against a small scale attack by a rouge nation. The US cannot launch its nukes and then pick off say a Russian counterattack. A large scale attack will saturate the defenses and the whole globe will pay. Even if we could pick off all of a retaliatory strike, we would ALL eventually succumb to the nightmare of a nuclear winter. The scenario of the US sitting all warm and cozy behind its shield while it nukes the world is just peacenik propaganda on the scale of the girl in the field commercial that Jhonson used against Goldwater.


Yes I know and thank you for calling me an ignorant, I know they wonít protect us if you launch on lets say China, but you could launch at a rouge nation, with out them having a chance of defending them selves.
But you fail to catch my point, all nukes are bad and they shouldnít be used by any one, neither should biological or chemical weapons, they have nothing to do with war.
War is a soldier fighting for his own life as well as his comrades, this goes for both sides.


Bilbo



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeonHelmet
But you fail to catch my point, all nukes are bad and they shouldnít be used by any one, neither should biological or chemical weapons, they have nothing to do with war.
War is a soldier fighting for his own life as well as his comrades, this goes for both sides.
Bilbo


I can't argue with that. Nuclear weapons are only usefull as long as they are not used. They are a strategic deterence period, once used thats pretty much it.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 08:16 AM
link   
And, Bilbo, you seem to miss my point, one that is not based on personal opinion but on history. Our special weapons have kept the peace, prevented another major war in Europe, whether you want to admit it or not.
No, "nukes" are not a "detergent", that is the job of products such as Tide or Gain. They are outstanding deterrents, though. But you seem to worry about what a soldier can do. I was a soldier, as a matter of fact, most of my time was spent with special weapons. As a matter of fact, I seriously doubt whatever ailments your collegues had were related to uranium ammunition (I assume you refer to depleted uranium) or I'd be in a pickle right now since nothing I was around was depleted at all. I do know many vets who did work with depleted uranium ammunition, and they suffered no ill effects. But hey, I've known Vietnam Vet's who chainsmoked in the rear with the gear and tried to blame the lung cancer on Agent Orange, so what the heck.

A soldier can do quite a bit in a nuclear battlefield environment, tell that to those who don't know. It is very survivable, unles you are too darned close to detonation, but then again, bullets are survivable unless you catch one in a vital spot, too. That would have been the case had the U.S. been forced to assault Japan; many hundreds of thousands of Allied lives were estimated to have been lost, but that is nothing compared to the casualties taken by the Japanese, not only combatants, but noncombatants as well. Plainly spoken, hundreds of thousands of women and children would have died. Had it not been for the nuclear deterrent we posed in Europe, the temptation to push farther west would probably have been too great for the Soviets, and the loss of human lives, both military and civilian, would have been catastrophic.

What are you talking about, if we decide to launch on China or some other "rouge" (did you mean rogue, or did you mean red, as in communistic like China?) state? Have we given you the idea that we are a nation that tosses nukes around like the Muslims toss around the heads of infidels? Sorry, we don't think they are weapons to be used lightly, so I wouldn't worry about that. We are also not ones to attack unless we our our allies have been attacked, and I'd say we have a century's worth of history that proves that. We'd rather be left alone and leave others alone, thank you, but this time, for once, we have been attacked, and are not going to war to defend our allies. Even in our defense of ourseleves, we've shown incredible restraint and even allow our "allies" to try and hold us to the standards of a criminal case rather than a caser of war declared upon us. So please, give us a bit of credit.
Let's look at the two nations we are manily concerned with right now; China and North Korea. The Chinese military trains, using the U.S. as the proposed enemy they will be fighting. I'm curious, imagine they were training as if your nation was their enemy, then imagine what your defensive proposals might be. North Korea is in a despotic, deteriorating state, led by a mad man who threatens the West whenever he wants attention and fuel. While his citizenry starve, his military is kept at a healthy and ready state although there are no nations who whish to attack North Korea. This country is pursuing nuclear capablity. The SDI will, in fact, defend us from a Chinese attack (at the moment), and will also defend us from North Korean, as well as Iranian future capabilities. This defense would neutralize a nuclear attack from a nation of limited ability, and I'd say that is a good thing, wouldn't you? This is where you nof your head yes. This will make nuclear weapons used in an offensive manner incapable of killing innocent civilians, and wouldn't it also lessen the destruction posed by a large nuclear force?

You say that all nuclear weapons are bad (I've already disproven that), but then you are against a system that would actually protect women and children from a nuclear attack and you are deliberating whether or not to protest against it? You are full of convoluted thought, I see why you are struggling with this.

One more point of this issue, and then I'm done. You say special weapons have nothing to do with war (what? Did you not catch the second word in the title "special weapons?"), and then you said. "War is a soldier fighting for his own life as well as his comrades, this goes for both sides."
This is not true. War is a state of open, armed conflict between nations, states or parties. There is no limit to the weaponry used. And furthermore, you may stop attempting to glamourize conventional conflict, their is nothing gallant about it, it is, as Sherman said. Hell. If our nukes prevent war, don't worry about it. We are the ones that are paying for the maintenance of the warheads, and we are also the ones paying for the SDI. Enjoy the economic windfall of Uncle Sam spreading my tax dollar wherever he goes, and enjoy the globe not at world war for the last 60 years, greatly due to the American nuclear program, again, at the cost of the American tax dollar.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Good post Thomas!

I would like to clear out some misunderstandings; it is probably my fault I am not to good in expressing myself in a foreign language.

You call them special weapons I call then an abomination against man.

Detergent doesnít that mean like to keep others from launching because it would be MAD. (If not, you knew what I meant)

As to my colleagues please donít doubt what I say, do you think I would make such a thing up to back up something so little, I have seen them and still sees them they are sick from cancer leukemia, from uran ammunition they have already won the case in trial, and now you are saying that it is not so.
Now these men didnít work with that ammunition but were near sites and investigated sites that youíre a-10 planes so nicely had destroyed for us.
Now I am not throwing accusations against you or your country, but my own country from keeping us in the dark, also these sites should have been marked as a no go zone, would you also dispute the evidence of all the sick children that suffer from cancer in these countries, is it just a coincidence?
Any way this is of topic so I will take this no further I will off course reply to anything you write.

Yes you can survive a nuke, you can actually be fairly close to one if you know what to do, the problem is you have to be in an ABC suit 24-7, and you canít live of the land so you have to have supplies, uncontaminated supplies. What I meant was that as a soldier you canít do much when the nukes start to fall, and I still stick to that.

I donít want to argue with you if Hiroshima and Nagasaki where correct, also you cant say that more weapons brings us closer to peace, its like saying you cant have peace without war.

But I wont dispute the facts you saved our arses during 2nd world war, and about the cold war well I think that was NATO that kept us safe there.

I am not saying that you will launch against china I was saying that the shield wouldn't protect us if you did.
And I am talking about ROGUE nations (do you have to rub my bad spelling in my face)
My problem is that any land you country considers to be rogue, wont have a chance to defend them selves, what if our Danish brown sauce and our meatballs suddenly become a threat in some American eyes, what then? Will you invade us under the protection of you SDI defense?
Now I know this is far out, I just donít like the fact that you decide with out the other countries when and what you invade.
And I am not saying you are tossing nukes around though you are the only one to have used them in combat.
And now because some terrorist organization declares war against the WEST not only the USA doesnít mean we can genocide an entire population.
And again we were there for you when you were under attack Denmark was one of the first countries to condemn the attacks and we were one of the first countries to back you up in the coalition, I would appreciate some respect for that.
Also donít rub the 9-11 on me; you want to label me as a terrorist or a supporter of one?
Yes nuclear weapons protect the children and women of the rich western countries while we drop al kinds of nasty stuff on the poor ones, I canít see though how that justifies it.

Again if you ask every soldier who has been in a sharp combat situation about what he thinks war is and what he fought for, he will most likely say his life and his comradeís life.
NOW IM NOT GLORIFYING WAR, IF YOU WHERE EVER A SOLDIER YOU WOULD NEVER SAY SUCH A HORRYFYING THING THERE IS NO GLORY IN WAR IT IS MEN TRYING NOT TO DIE.

And again pushing a button has nothing to do with war, neither has projects like Agent Orange, Moab, Cluster Bombs, Chemical or biological and atomic weapons.

As I final statement I support my allies though I do not agree with them, I support the SDI system being installed on Greenland, I do not agree with the invasion of minor countries to install puppet governments and by the way it was your own US government that put Saddam in power in the first place.

Baron Bilbo Baggins
Bilbo's Empire of the Neutral Zone

[edit on 2-9-2004 by NeonHelmet]




top topics



 
0

log in

join