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.

 

'US used nukes on Iraq, Afghanistan'

page: 5
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


Guys this website explains it all
Seem's many country's have signed up to a mandate to ban them here
www.bandepleteduranium.org...

Just a bit from the site

The International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW) campaigns for a ban on the use of uranium in all conventional weapons and weapon systems and for monitoring, health care, compensation and environmental remediation for communities affected by their use. ICBUW represents more than 120 NGOs worldwide and seeks to do for uranium weapons what the International Coalition to Ban Landmines and Cluster Munition Coalition did for those types of weapons, in essence to develop a uranium weapons treaty that would prohibit the use of uranium in all conventional, i.e. non-nuclear, weapons.
edit on 1-12-2011 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
I can say without a doubt that we used blu-82 bombs not nukes. Was there
.

blu-82



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Xeven
 


I do not doubt they used conventional wepons. But that does not mean they never used other things too..



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Soshh
 


Please explain further, I thought the use of DU was illegal. After I have seen what it can do I am in no doubt that it should be..



There is no specific treaty ban on the use of DU projectiles. There is a developing scientific debate and concern expressed regarding the impact of the use of such projectiles and it is possible that, in future, there will be a consensus view in international legal circles that use of such projectiles violate general principles of the law applicable to use of weapons in armed conflict. No such consensus exists at present.



In September 2008, and in response to the 2007 General Assembly resolution, the UN Secretary General published the views of 15 states alongside those of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO). The IAEA and WHO evidence differed little from previous statements on the issue.[53] The report was largely split between states concerned about depleted uranium's use such as Finland, Cuba, Japan, Serbia, Argentina and predominantly NATO members who do not consider the use of depleted uranium munitions problematic.[53]


en.wikipedia.org...

basically, the WHO, another one of the lovely group who is only out for your well-being have claimed there is not enough evidence to support that DU is so dangerous. Interestingly enough, most WHO members are the exact nations that keep pushing for its use....



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


Idk i am reading this atm..... on Afganistan



"some form of uranium weapon had been used (...) The results were astounding: the donors presented concentrations of toxic and radioactive uranium isotopes between 100 and 400 times greater than in the Gulf War veterans tested in 1999." www.umrc.net

The results also confirmed that the toxic radiation was not attributable to ‘heavy metal' depleted uranium ammunition (DU), but to another unidentified form of uranium contamination. Of course on this issue of the US starting a nuclear war, the US media has also chosen to remain silent, so as not to ‘endanger' in any way the Pentagon's future pre-emptive war plans

www.globalresearch.ca...


I still think it's from the DU projectiles, they just don't want to admit it because it's not only a very valuable contract, it's very effective round. And they'd open themselves up to buttload of disibility cases.

I never served in or even near a bradley while it fired it's main gun, but I've been under A-10's when they fire on a few occasions and it is a huge amount DU getting pumped out.

After we came back from the first Gulf War a good friend of mine who was a gunner on a Bradley started telling me about all the weird stuff going on with his body. He has GI bleeds, headaches, fatigue, etc... He didn't start putting 2 and 2 together until they had a reunion of his crew in 2001, they all were dealing with the same stuff. 2 had recieved disability and 2 more were trying to get it, and they all think it was the ammo they used over there.

His armored division saw most of the short lived heavy tank combat, and even in that short time they had to resupply with rounds 5 times they were doing so much firing.

I've seen these Gulf War Syndrome guys while working at the VA in St Cloud. At first the doc's were stumped, then they were saying it was all in their heads, then a few years ago a bunch of them were saying it was real. They believed that a combination of our ordinance and Iraqi chemical weapons were to blame.

I was in from 1984 to 2003, and NBC (Nuclear Biological Chemical) traning had another accronym among troops, No Body Cares. It was a joke, the NBC NCO was always either paying for an eff up, or a Bolo nobody else wanted, like the motorpool officer.

A lot of our NBC detectors were built in the 50's and poorly maintained. They were outdated and not designed to detect all possible chemical agents, mostly just the ones we had.
edit on 1-12-2011 by AGWskeptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeven
I can say without a doubt that we used blu-82 bombs not nukes. Was there
.

blu-82


you were in 2 countries at the same time?

wow..




posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignant

Originally posted by Xeven
I can say without a doubt that we used blu-82 bombs not nukes. Was there
.

blu-82


you were in 2 countries at the same time?

wow..



Actually I've been in up to 4 different countries in the same day many many times while deployed there. Retired now though.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


Agricultural development in the region surrounding Tora Bora does not indicate that a nuclear strike occurred. Also weighing against the report is that Jalalabad (a.k.a. J-bad) is overlooked by the Tora Bora mountain range where a significant number of Americans operate in and around. Granted some Afghanis look as if they might suffer from radiation poisoning, but I suspect that's largely the result of harsh conditions one must endure simply to survive.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Soshh
 


Please explain further, I thought the use of DU was illegal. After I have seen what it can do I am in no doubt that it should be..


It doesn't take a lot of explaining mate. The resolution that your previous link referred to did not result in either the use of DU becoming illegal under international law or the legal classification of DU as a weapon of mass destruction.


the United Nations in 1996 passed a resolution that depleted uranium weapons are weapons of mass destruction, and they are illegal under all international laws and treaties.


One can't expect websites with such a clear agenda to be entirely objective and accurate, but the above statement is incredibly misleading if not utterly false.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


No, it's not preferable. Wide open areas like the desert spread radioactivity far worse than in a city. Dropping a nuke on Iraq means cancer increases in Israel too. But you know what? For those whom have bathed in war and injustice for so long, their existence in null, and their irradiation preferred.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


I don't care about their interests. I care about the destruction of movements detrimental to the right of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nuclear bombs get a message across pretty easily. Keep in your caves and abuse your own damn women and children. Don't go and come into nations with thousands of years of history, tear down their cultures, and force a way of life detrimental to life and liberty.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


No, it's not preferable. Wide open areas like the desert spread radioactivity far worse than in a city.


Dude, nuking a city turns it into a wide open area like the desert.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
Iam sorry but if they had the Russians and Chinese would have detected this with their satellites and they would have told the world so.
Dis info to me


Russia has a terrible history in Afghanistan. And in case you don't understand. All of the players, are under one head. They're just playing roles and sometimes they get geniunely mad at each other, but mostly its a game.

They're nuking everyone. And we need to rise up, not OWS in financial street which was good, I did approve, however, its in front of our representatives offices in huge crowds performing citizens arrests for murder, torture, (including cancer which is one of the worst forms), and genocide, and a long list of others.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


But not necessarily the same wind patterns. You can make some place a field where once there are mountains of steel. But the state-sized wind flows won't change that much. The fact is, the area of Iraq is a wind funnel. That's the equator. When the sun's rays are the strongest. That makes for huge energy shifts, and with it, wind systems.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Soshh
 


A bit off topic but i though DU was illegal too...




The United Nations in 1996 passed a resolution that depleted uranium weapons are weapons of mass destruction, and they are illegal under all international laws and treaties.


www.thewe.cc...


Just plain wrong - Legal status of DU in weapons - as of 2001 the ICC position was:


There is no specific treaty ban on the use of DU projectiles. There is a developing scientific debate and concern expressed regarding the impact of the use of such projectiles and it is possible that, in future, there will be a consensus view in international legal circles that use of such projectiles violate general principles of the law applicable to use of weapons in armed conflict. No such consensus exists at present.[



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
actually there is evidence of EU weapons and it was covered in this thread a while back.
EU= ENRICHED uranium
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by rigel4
 


Not all tactical nuclear weaapons are detonated above ground. If I knew most of my enemy combatants were in caves, I would detonate one underground to collapse all the cave systems on the enemies. The only way Russia or China would be able to detect this is with a seismograph. And Afghanistan is earthquake prone. Watch video for demo:




edit on 1-12-2011 by Alchemst7 because: miss spell

edit on 1-12-2011 by Alchemst7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shillbillyjim
actually there is evidence of EU weapons and it was covered in this thread a while back.
EU= ENRICHED uranium
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Neutron bombs used in Fallujah and Labanon and the Twin towers??


It was nonsense then, and it is nonsense now.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
And the MOAB is a firecracker compared to a nuke...even a small one.



Originally posted by subcsailor
reply to post by purplemer
 


I'd say something like the MOAB. Mother of all bombs. Check this link out. Video link

OT: I wish I knew how to embedd a video. Sorry I will learn.

Any way. Check out the final mushroom cloud. This is one big bomb. And Russia has an even bigger one.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Alchemst7
 


I really, really, really don't think it's a tactical nuke shown in the video.




top topics



 
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join