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.

 

New DHS Whistle Blower or HOAX?

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by auraelium
 



Thats a ridiculas comparison, Iraq was a country with a population of 26 million and a land mass half the size of Texas no nukes no satalites and a military comprised of second hand Russian hardware from the 50s and 60s.

The USA has a population of 350 million a land mass that covers 10% of the world with the most up to date military hardware on the planet also add the fact that Canada would join the US in defence if war was declared..........Logisictly it would be beyond impossible to take the US and Canada.



And what equipment will America have after our infrastructure is crippled from nuclear strikes?

100,000 US troops invaded a country of 26 million (Iraq)….that’s less than 1 half of 1% of the population. Even if you double for an attack on the US that’s only 3.5 million troops. There are as many as 3 million in China’s military alone!! Never mind counting troops from Russia, Iran, N. Korea, anywhere in South America, any other willing member of a coalition that wants the US WIPED OF THE MAP!



edit on 19-8-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by auraelium
 



Thats a ridiculas comparison, Iraq was a country with a population of 26 million and a land mass half the size of Texas no nukes no satalites and a military comprised of second hand Russian hardware from the 50s and 60s.

The USA has a population of 350 million a land mass that covers 10% of the world with the most up to date military hardware on the planet also add the fact that Canada would join the US in defence if war was declared..........Logisictly it would be beyond impossible to take the US and Canada.



And what equipment will America have after our infrastructure is crippled from nuclear strikes?

100,000 US troops invaded a country of 26 million (Iraq)….that’s less than 1 half of 1% of the population. Even if you double for an attack on the US that’s only 3.5 million troops. There are as many as 3 million in China’s military alone!!



What Nuclear strikes? Russia has about 500 operational nukes many of which are tactical, China has about 250 but hasnt got ICBM's capable of reaching the US.., the US would return fire with 10 times what they could deploy... the US would take heavy damage but China and Russia would cease to exist.

Theres no credible scenario in which China & Russia could win a nuclear war against Nato, they simply dont have the armaments to do so, they have less than 1000 nukes between them Nato has about 10,000, do the Math.
edit on 19-8-2012 by auraelium because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
What nukes??


How about 3 decades of nukes planted in the US that I described in the OP??????

Remember the topic?



“One of his assignments was to find places to hide nuclear suitcase bombs inside the U.S.A. You can read about it in his book, Through the eyes of the enemy.

“Colonel Lunev personally told me that the Russians were bringing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons into the U.S.A throughout the 1970s and 80s by smuggling them over the Mexican border.



edit on 19-8-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Nukes only have an operational life of about 10-15 years and given the heightened security since 911 i doubt they have got any through lately, if ever at all.Also nukes have to be detonated above ground to give maximum yield, I would find it hard to believe that if there were that many nukes smuggled into the US that some would not have been found or detected and isotope tests would immediately identify them as Russian made...you think that Russia would risk that?
edit on 19-8-2012 by auraelium because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by auraelium
 



I would finf it hard to believe that if there were that many nukes smuggled into the US that some would not have been found or detected and isotope tests would immediately identify them as Russian made...you think that Russia would risk that?


Uhm….we’ve caught Russian spies here!!

YES, they’d risk it!


We’ll agree to disagree on this one….it’s going to play out soon enough.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Makes sense to me. We were doing the same thing, according to Richard Marcinko, during the exact same time all over europe and russia. We had hidden caches where we would keep things like suitcase nukes too. Our goal was to blow up all the major highway over passes to prevent a Warsaw invasion of Europe in the event of the next major war.

He also goes on to speculate that on occasion the nukes would go missing when the caches were periodically checked. The idea of russian sleeper cells is not too far fetched. Them coming through mexico. Probably didn't even have to go through that much trouble why not just come in any one of our major airports.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
Makes sense to me. We were doing the same thing, according to Richard Marcinko, during the exact same time all over europe and russia. We had hidden caches where we would keep things like suitcase nukes too. Our goal was to blow up all the major highway over passes to prevent a Warsaw invasion of Europe in the event of the next major war.

He also goes on to speculate that on occasion the nukes would go missing when the caches were periodically checked. The idea of russian sleeper cells is not too far fetched. Them coming through mexico. Probably didn't even have to go through that much trouble why not just come in any one of our major airports.


Your comparing Apples with Oranges, suitcase nukes are about 0.2 kilotons which is about the same as a truck full of dynamite, enough maby to take out half a city block, US ICBMs are 10-15 megatons capable of leveling everything within a 20 mile radius,its a different ball game.
edit on 19-8-2012 by auraelium because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
There seems to be much confusion on this issue of Nuclear force dispositions. I hate to say this for the people who are convinced the United States is still in the position we once were...and not even that long ago, but we aren't the same country right now and we aren't in a position to pick these fights. Not right now we're not.

The source here is the Federation of American Scientists. They were founded in 1945 and have been tracking everything related to anything Nuclear ever since. They're pretty much the top for authority on these things where we aren't calling a Government phone number, in my opinion. Here are the numbers they have on force comparison:



Federation of American Scientists - Nuclear Force Strength by Nation and System

On the website they are detailed enough to show which weapons type and specific systems that are either declared by the treaties or suspected in the case of Israel. (It's on the site there to the right of the capture cut off)

I think the most surprising thing is where a good % of their (Russian) warheads are based. Ummm... Hell... No wonder they don't much care about our Stealth technology. Why should they?? If they guess within a couple miles, they got the target.
They have over 600 SA-10's for declared nuclear forces. Now THAT is what I call a no kidding version of air defense! We just have the puny little patriot batteries with chemical explosive. I feel so inferior.


* Oh... I figured I'd drop this by as well. It's a list with linked description of every nuclear weapons system the United States has developed. There are a few "Atomic Demolition Munition " class weapons and they are in the 100-200 lb range as portable nuclear weapons...but portable is relative as it takes two guys from what I've read and the chart shows no active ones in service. The last ones showed retiring in the 80's I believe.

U.S. Nuclear Weapons - Historic Catalog w/ Descriptions and Specs
edit on 19-8-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: Added Link

edit on 19-8-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: Corrected the ADM name



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
There seems to be much confusion on this issue of Nuclear force dispositions. I hate to say this for the people who are convinced the United States is still in the position we once were...and not even that long ago, but we aren't the same country right now and we aren't in a position to pick these fights. Not right now we're not.

The source here is the Federation of American Scientists. They were founded in 1945 and have been tracking everything related to anything Nuclear ever since. They're pretty much the top for authority on these things where we aren't calling a Government phone number, in my opinion. Here are the numbers they have on force comparison:



Federation of American Scientists - Nuclear Force Strength by Nation and System

On the website they are detailed enough to show which weapons type and specific systems that are either declared by the treaties or suspected in the case of Israel. (It's on the site there to the right of the capture cut off)

I think the most surprising thing is where a good % of their (Russian) warheads are based. Ummm... Hell... No wonder they don't much care about our Stealth technology. Why should they?? If they guess within a couple miles, they got the target.
They have over 600 SA-10's for declared nuclear forces. Now THAT is what I call a no kidding version of air defense! We just have the puny little patriot batteries with chemical explosive. I feel so inferior.


* Oh... I figured I'd drop this by as well. It's a list with linked description of every nuclear weapons system the United States has developed. There are a few "Atomic Munition Demolition" class weapons and they are in the 100-200 lb range as portable nuclear weapons...but portable is relative as it takes two guys from what I've read and the chart shows no active ones in service. The last ones showed retiring in the 80's I believe.

U.S. Nuclear Weapons - Historic Catalog w/ Descriptions and Specs
edit on 19-8-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: Added Link


That chart is ancient, cold war era, Russia has maby a hand full of cold war nukes that are operational now that have been reconditioned and its new Topol-M class ICBMs which it had somthing like less than 100 of in 2008, with 10 warheads in each.Them days are gone.
Also It was debatable that Russia ever had as many nukes as it claimed during the cold war, some estimates put it at about quarter of what it said it had by the time of the collapse of the old soviet Union.All of which would be out of operation by now due to decay.
In 1995 Russia had to commondere two private chicken farms outside Moscow just to feed its troops in Chechnya,so i doubt they had much money to maintain its nuclear arsenal.
edit on 19-8-2012 by auraelium because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by auraelium
 


I'll accept that when you have a link that counters it. Until then, FAS is respected as being knowledgeable in the area they make it their life to focus on. Sources work... Opinions ..well... I'll just be happy to see the chart with corrected numbers you refer to.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by MmmPie
 



Don't forget..

Ss admin bought bullets along w/ post office, FEMA, ....there's probably more...I just wanted to say its more then just DHS buying them...



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by auraelium
 


I'll accept that when you have a link that counters it. Until then, FAS is respected as being knowledgeable in the area they make it their life to focus on. Sources work... Opinions ..well... I'll just be happy to see the chart with corrected numbers you refer to.


As of July 2009, Russia's strategic arsenal reportedly shrunk to 2,723 warheads, including: 367 ICBMs with 1,248 warheads, 13 SSBNs with 591 warheads and 76 bombers with 884 warheads.[11]


Thats from wikipedia and thats what it has declared so you can count the true figure is probably less, Thats a long way of 13,000.Plus keep in mind that its 1950s Bear, prop driven Bombers would have a hard time getting inside US airspace in a war scenario, They would be sitting ducks for modern next generation air defence systems.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 20-8-2012 by auraelium because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Anyone who would be able to mastermind this type of plan would hopefully have a better historical perspective...

America rose from Europe. Imperialism is rooted in Europe. Why would the attack be on America?

America may be more of a false power projection...Europe is the financial and ideological powerhouse behind it.

For one reason or another, I think America may be seen as highly beneficial to humanity when looking at potential future. Any revenge, especially involving the Chinese, would more likely be aimed at England/France/Italy/Germany/Dutch.

Pretty sure those who want large scale war are in the extreme minority, and anti-Americanism exists more in lower/middle classes than various aristocracies that pull strings.

Nah, we'll be fine. I think the next 50 years will play out more like Cold War than World War. I sympathize for those with unfounded paranoia, which I myself am often a victim of.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrSpad
Russia and China both have a vested intrerest in the US remaining a great power. [...] Do they want the US gone? No. [...] Life is cheaper, easier, and safer for both Russia and China with the US as top dog. [...] And I will not even get into how silly the idea of the so called invasion is, common sense should make that clear.


I agree 100%, MrSpad.

Even if China / Russia wanted to challenge the U.S., invading U.S. homeland would be the most stupid idea ever.

They (China) could simply kill the USD if they wanted to.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Damn it ! Am I going to have to subscribe
to a Gerald Celente news letter to find out
if the USA has been Red Dawned?
Wouldn't I notice on my own?

No offense Seabag as one Sea Texan to another,
But you offered a choice in your title.
I say Hoax.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by auraelium
 

Okay.. I'm not sure how to respond to Wikipedia as a source. At College, papers are flat rejected on the spot for using that as the source. There are reasons for that, actually. In this case, you might have noticed...though didn't mention it if you did, but to correct me you literally read my own source's numbers back to me.


My chart is from the Federation of American Scientists. Wiki's paragraph is quoting figures from the Federation of American Scientists. My chart is March of 2008 for FAS figures, and someone put in July, 2009 figures for your Wiki paragraph. Well, you were right about there being updated numbers.

Source - FAS

I kept digging and I'm glad I did! I found the detailed report style break down of all strategic and NON-strategic Nuclear forces for all the top nations covering 2012. These are long and detailed reports with current system service status, plans and future development and schedules. I just grabbed a couple lines from each System type heading on the current known and estimated numbers. As noted, Russia is also in the midst of extensive modernization, upgrading and next generation production of new systems. The Bear is busy...and has been for a few years now.


Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles


In mid-December 2011, Lt. Gen. Sergey Karakayev, commander of Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces (SMF), stated that 86 new SS-27 Mod. 1 (Topol-M) and SS-27 Mod. 2 (RS-24) missiles at that time made up 28 percent of Russia’s deployed ICBM force (Star TV, 2011). If his numbers are accurate, it indicates that Russia currently deploys approximately 322 ICBMs with nearly 1,090 warheads.


Strategic Submarines


The number and breakdown of Russia’s active nuclear submarine fleet has been relatively constant for several years: six Delta IVs and three Delta IIIs that can carry a combined 144 SLBMs with up to 528 warheads.


The Russian navy plans to build up to eight Borey-class SSBNs, each equipped with 16 SS-N-32 (Bulava) SLBMs that can carry up to six warheads apiece.


Russian SSBNs conducted five strategic deterrent patrols in 2011. For the past decade, Russia has not run continuous at-sea deterrent patrols but instead deployed SSBNs on training patrols. However, from mid-2012, according to the Russian Navy, Russia “will resume constant patrolling of the world’s oceans by strategic nuclear submarines”


Strategic Bombers


The bomber fleet is capable of carrying a total of 820 nuclear weapons, but the aircraft do not carry nuclear weapons under normal circumstances. We estimate that Russia stores only a couple of hundred warheads at bomber bases, as the US bomber fleet does, with the balance having been moved to central storage facilities.


Russia has begun design studies of a new strategic bomber that may emerge as a prototype by the early 2020s. The new aircraft would replace Tu-160 and Tu-95MS heavy bombers as well as the Tu-22M3 nuclear-capable, medium-range bomber


Non Strategic (Tactical) Nuclear Weapons


We estimate that Russia’s tactical air forces are assigned 730 AS-4 air-to-surface missiles and bombs; Tu-22M (Backfire) intermediate-range bombers can deliver both the missiles and bombs, whereas Su-24 (Fencer) and Su-34 (Fullback) fighter-bombers deliver bombs only. Russia is modernizing some of its Fencers, but the aircraft will be replaced by Su-34 (Fullback) fighter-bombers; deployment of the Fullback has started at bases in the western Russia. Some other aircraft may also have a nuclear capability.


The approximately 660 warheads assigned to Russia’s naval nonstrategic delivery platforms are for cruise missiles, antisubmarine weapons, anti-air missiles, torpedoes, and depth bombs. Russia’s first new Severodvinsk-class (Yasen-class) nuclear-powered attack submarine is conducting sea-trials before entering operations with the Russian navy.


Russia maintains air-defense and antiballistic missile forces that we estimate are allocated around 430 warheads. The warheads are used in Gazelle antiballistic missile interceptors around Moscow and in part of the S-300/S-400 air-defense system.
Source For Above Reports

Russia may have been quiet as a Church Mouse for just over 20 years.... Bears can hibernate a long time and this one didn't lose any teeth. It's claws are getting sharpened back up. Putin seems determined on that point and he strikes me as a man who does what he says. We're fools to pick a fight here.


edit on 20-8-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: Forgot Source Link



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by sealing
 



Damn it ! Am I going to have to subscribe 
to a Gerald Celente news letter to find out 
if the USA has been Red Dawned? 
Wouldn't I notice on my own?


You'd probably notice on your own but there's nothing wrong with a dose of Celente now and then. 



No offense Seabag as one Sea Texan to another, 
But you offered a choice in your title. 
I say Hoax.


None taken...



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   
Riiight.. because a Christian talk show guy has all the inside info.. and homeland security KNOWS about 20k + "sleeper agents" in our country.. but does nothing about it.


Like all the other ludicrous theories.. I won't be holding my breath too long on this one. I think a propaganda agenda may well be at the root of this story.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Well if we are going to be taken over by Russian's I hope a really goodlooking Russian dude sweeps me up and takes me away in the process! Ha!



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   
I think the US should be turned into an "open mental assylum". And when the "immigration" authorities, question new immigrants they should ask questions like:

"are you here, because of the aliens? oh, ok ... it's florida for you".
"are you here, becuase the russians are coming? yeah? ok, it's washington for you".
"do you think the Chinese are trying to overpopulate themselves in the world? you do? sorry, we already have enough chinese, you're not granted immigration".

Bad boys, bad boys ...


edit on 20/8/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join