NATO Cosmic Top Secret- An ATS Exclusive on the NATO Plans for North Korea

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Well it would be quite convenient that Iran NK and Syria would be working together... And probably some al qaeda to.

reply to post by Senduko


Dude you have no idea read the book “terror and consent”, there is a whole big explanation about the links to Pakistan, Syrian, Iran and DPRK’s nuclear weapons program that all stem from one Pakistani nuclear scientist who used to work at CERN. I cant quite remember the details because it was so long ago that I read the book but it does make for interesting reading.

Thanks for the tip. I'm gonna see if there's an E-book version.

Originally posted by NorthBlizzard
I've been here a week and call me wrong but.. Why is it people can post things like this with no real source provided, and the ATS community believes it. But when someone posts something with a link or video source, they discredit them?? I'm in no way calling OP a liar, just something I have noticed here..

I would actually usually agree with you.

In this part of ATS the grey area you don’t need to provide sources now I am very confident in my source, actually for me the OP is a matter of fact however I can’t provide you with anything that would “prove” the OP to you.

If you take a look at my previous threads and posts then judge this thread you might see it in a different light.

Originally posted by NorthBlizzard
I've been here a week and call me wrong but.. Why is it people can post things like this with no real source provided, and the ATS community believes it. But when someone posts something with a link or video source, they discredit them?? I'm in no way calling OP a liar, just something I have noticed here..

And.....what could the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have to do with Asian problems?

Originally posted by NorthBlizzard
I've been here a week and call me wrong but.. Why is it people can post things like this with no real source provided, and the ATS community believes it. But when someone posts something with a link or video source, they discredit them?? I'm in no way calling OP a liar, just something I have noticed here..

If I might throw in something to add to the OP's reply ..since you make it such a general question overall.

A good many..if not a majority...of the regular contributors to ATS spend a good deal of time outside posting to read these issues. How deeply, tends to vary, but you get to know pretty quickly who does outside homework and who knows only what OP posts on a topic say about a thing.

Add to that, this particular OP has a solid history of due diligence and care for topics, in my experience. That also tends to change ..if only a bit... the level of proof regulars stomp a foot down to demand.

You should contact the ATS Live crew and get this topic on there and even tell your story.

Star and flag.

-SAP-

reply to post by Vasa Croe

There already is. Or at least there used to be. Cosmic is/was the name of the hidden moderator boards behind the curtain of the public ATS.

OP, what you've said jives well with everything else I've seen and been thinking. The next few weeks/months are going to be very interesting...

reply to post by crankyoldman


The "COSMIC" part of this you are referring to is just the type of classification of the security clearance. It refers to NATO. I had a "COSMIC NATO SECRET" myself when I was stationed in Europe.

Originally posted by rjbaggins
reply to post by crankyoldman

 

The "COSMIC" part of this you are referring to is just the type of classification of the security clearance. It refers to NATO. I had a "COSMIC NATO SECRET" myself when I was stationed in Europe.

Yeah. Its called a CTS clearance... or a CTSA ( Cosmic Top Secret Atomal). Id say someone will be in a bit o trouble if theyre blabbing with a CTS. Thats definitely under " restricted data". WIthin NATO you have Cosmic Top Secret, NATO Secret ( NS) , NATO Confidential ( NC), and Atomal. The CTSA is under Atomal... as are US and UK atomic restricted ( or formally restricted) data.

I can see China sitting back until SK and NK are just about spent and then occupying both countries in a lightening move. As Wrabbitt will show when he puts his thread up, it will not take very long for NK to make SK look like a picture of the moon's surface.

The difference between NATO's Plans and reality will be the fact that the new Government of a Unified Korea will look to China rather than the US. Just think who will be rigging, oops sorry, running the elections.

China does not want and has never wanted the West to have a foothold on the Asian Land Mass.

P

I don't give a rats ass what China says. They are behind this whole mess and as soon as NK moves we should nuke both of the leaderships bunkers and missile silos, then strike at will at their bases. You can never trust China or Russia with anything. They are lying Commies!! Their ultimate goal is the destruction of the USA so they can rule the world.

reply to post by Patriotsrevenge


I only have one word for you, MAD

P

Originally posted by pheonix358
reply to post by Patriotsrevenge

 

I only have one word for you, MAD

P

For mutually assured destruction to be a deterrent, a nation needs to have the ability to fully absorb a full scale first strike and be guaranteed to retain the capability to inflict massive catastrophic damage in retaliation.

The PRC and DPRK strategic forces combined lack both the warhead inventory and delivery systems to even remotely meet the criteria.

Only the U.S. and Russian Federation have arsenals which meet the criteria.

I for one wouldnt trust China as far as i could chuck Kimmy....
They have this nasty habit of saying one thing while doing the opposite.
They steal every invention they knock off with slave labour and sel to fly by might retailers world wide....
Their whole country runs on raft, and they have an insatiable appetite for world power.....i could see them taking taiwan over while the Korean peninsula goes up in flames..

What the Joint Chiefs have ready for NK are surgical strikes using overwhelming conventional weaponry, IMHO. There is no need for nukes. There are also NK hostile missile interception capabilities at the ready.

If this is anything more than the usual bluff, Kim will have a bad day. Part of the 'surgical strike' strategy is to know the whereabouts of the 'hostile leadership' entities and in the words of the Charlie Sheen character in APOCALYPSE NOW... "terminate with extreme prejudice". Various news accounts today theorized that Kim is taking his cues from old generation generals, the 'old guard'. They're on the immediate termination list, too.

Surgical strikes are thought to be more humane or moral and cleaner because we neutralize the military threat versus annihilating 'innocent' civilians (granted, they are soaked in propaganda, but to some extent so are we). Going nuke would most definitely rile Russia and China.

Escalating by moving aggressively on other nations (Iran, Syria) would be out of the question. Doing so would be like daring Russia to intervene and Putin has to have a way to save face and be passive at the same time. Russia couldn't sit on the sidelines if we were to pull a surprise attack on multiple countries simultaneously. Ditto for China.

So what we're left with as the only rational solution is that we warn NK, which was already done today formally and diplomatically (toward China/Russia diplomatically); then we wait and call their (NK) bluff. This was what JFK did in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Gave them a stern warning and then waited. NK will either back down, as usual, or start some # which will be the go ahead for a non-nuclear surgical strike. If they know where Kim is, he will be vaporized in one or another non-nuclear methods. We've had 60 years to plan for this surgical strike. It's not like we're scrambling to figure out what to do.

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme
It seems to me the use of Nukes by NATO would be a mistake. By using only conventional weapons, they can claim the moral superiority of NATO and spin this action as a global protection.

Lets be clear here. If what the OP has said is true and the nukes are flying about, it wont be NATO nukes, it will be US nukes. I cannot forsee a British or French PM giving the order for their 'boats' to let loose a nuke at North Korea.

Originally posted by stirling
I for one wouldnt trust China as far as i could chuck Kimmy....
They have this nasty habit of saying one thing while doing the opposite.
They steal every invention they knock off with slave labour and sel to fly by might retailers world wide....
Their whole country runs on raft, and they have an insatiable appetite for world power.....i could see them taking taiwan over while the Korean peninsula goes up in flames..

Uhm.... The US is not innocent where it comes to 'stealing' inventions and patents and of 'making them' their own. The US also has a 'hard-on' for world power, whereas China simply wants to be the regional (Pacific) power as it rightfully once was. Taiwan is also a part of China .... a part that it wants back.

China certainly has a game plan, one that has been in the making for many years. Dont ever underestimate the Chinese, They think in long term plans, not short term plans like the West do.

reply to post by Wotan


The BRIC nations had a summit in Durban, South Africa - BRIC Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa - to move forward with a "world bank" to replace the IMF.

I also believe that the US was pretty much shut out of the pacific economic summit last year.

As usual, follow the money, I have a hard time believing that China or Russia is going to cooperate with the US over anything - especially throwing nukes at rouge nations like NK, Iran, or Syria.

I think they're either setting the NATO forces up for a betrayal, or the US is in on it, hoping for world-wide communism - LOOK PEOPLE - the US and the EU is broke and bankrupt.

Originally posted by NorthBlizzard
I've been here a week and call me wrong but.. Why is it people can post things like this with no real source provided, and the ATS community believes it. But when someone posts something with a link or video source, they discredit them?? I'm in no way calling OP a liar, just something I have noticed here..

It's called cognitive dissonance. You believe what backs up your belief and ignore or belittle that which conflicts with your belief. That way you don't have to change your belief. The absolute classic ones are the end of world with a date, the date passes, the world is still here and the prediction changes

If people analysed information as in a court case and came to a conclusion based on the presented evidence almost every single conspiracy on this site would melt away !