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

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Thanks dude that means alot coming from you!

Originally posted by Wotan

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.

As i have said before there a little more to this i cant get into but what i will say is that this is very much a NATO agreement with America leading

S+F OP... I see credence in this. It's possible however that there is more to this than NATO suspect.

The financial ties between US and China are interesting and the implications for conflict between the two in light of them are equally so.

The more I consider this, the more intrigued I am. China know exactly what fiat currency is and is not, they invented fiat currency...........Bitcoin is an interesting development on this front.

The potential for the western powers to be blind-sided should not be underestimated.
A plan is afoot, a dastardly and cunning plan (or two).

Interesting times indeed. I don't know what is going on but I won't rule anything out at this juncture.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


This information is the missing link between the USA interest in Korea and the Middle East.

I have been struck lately by a sense of confusion as to the escalating rhetoric relating to Korea, knowing that in the past, the pressure of the Chinese government would have calmed the situation by now. International politics is simply the public outplay of previous decisions made behind closed doors, and I had puzzled over the coming strategy for Korea in light of what is known about the USA plans regarding Iran, etc.

Using the DPRK as the example of 'rogue state gone wild, nuclear edition' - well, it's just the perfect gift for those who would like to see Iran taken out of the picture. After Iran, where will they go next? It seems unlikely that the pattern will cease, but what that means for the citizens of the West is a bit uncertain.

My guess is that we will ultimately face an horrific cloud of Islamic Jihad emanating from the Caliphate born in the power vacuum created by the systematic decimation of sovereign states in the Middle East.

Okay OP, what does your source say about Russia's involvement with these "agreements"?

Putin's not going to be happy with preemptive nuke strikes against Syria or Iran....

Like others I see a ring of truth about this up to the point of the nuclear missiles in the Middle East.

It did make me wonder why China has not mentioned the latest escalation between N and S Korea, nor for that matter too worried that the B2 Stealth bomber was flying near her region. I had assumed this was simply biased news coverage.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Well I for one don't believe your source
even if NK should use nukes there is no way anyone else will use these weapons of the past
there are no profit or logic in using weapons that make the land toxic and barren.

A logical retaliation would be shooting down the NK missile and make a strategic attack on military key points and places of command with drones, jets, missiles and small groups of elite soldiers.

take out the small control group and you take out the bee hive.

I put my trust in what you say because some of that has already been disclosed. Some of the information is new to me though, such as using a NK nuclear strike as justification for disarming certain nuclear states. I can buy that China would go along with cutting ties against the North, and even before I read what you posted I had figured that it was economical for them to do so. The big question in my mind is whether China has told NK their plans. It would depend on what they really want.

It is quite possible that although the demise of NK would offer China certain economic benefits, China is being deceptive with the west. This is because although they would jump at the chance for such economics, they also support NK because that would be their largest ally in the event of war with the United States. China has and still is planning for a war with the US, just like the US is planning for a war with China. This is normal, as a nation must be prepared. But there is evidence to suggest that China wishes to displace America as the top nation of the world, and would attempt to do so if and only if the right opportunity presented itself. So would a strike by NK against SK and the US be that opportunity?

Of course China is not going to reveal their plans to the US or anybody else, so it does not mean anything that they say they support a NATO strike against NK if NK initiates hostilities. Both options are equally possible at this point, at least in my opinion. Anyway, that Jong-Un is a puppet of the older military elite is no secret. That they would want to take over the South is very probable, and in not really a secret either, since the North has wanted to conquer the South ever since the Korean Conflict/War.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Listen, what an idea for Sci-Fi novel,
some land stations are provided, in some area, producing radiation of some mental amplyfier of some sect, or religion, and that is all covered with a system of the satelite lines, which is numbered enormously.
The whole day watch of selected persons (bingo, or similar) is provided, the system can locate any of targeted persons in any time, a kinda of GPRS (or PMS :lol they can even put X-RAY sources in neighboring flat, just by the wall where the person, any of, sleeps, or the source of some disturbing waves, near to the sound range.
Infrared included. More fantastic, they can locate your head in any time, and to bomb it with an energy of some muslim medium, or similar

Wouldn't that be a try of murder, something like that? If that? Let's talk about morality, in this very moment...

Well, cowboy bussines, Muslims pay a lot, and get you all... Buying, selling people all over the world...
Listen, son, I am not muslim, and have no intention to be that ever...

I have issue with the suggestion that China is in any sort of agreement to allow NATO a preemptive strike on Iran.

As for the "plan" NATO has for NK, that doesn't make much sense to me, either.

The price NATO will pay, in any event and under all circumstances of the peninsula going hot, is the loss of Seoul.

I'm confident that top brass find the loss of Seoul as unacceptable, hence NATO's reluctance for any kind of conflict to transpire whatsoever.

I don't doubt there are plans to decimate NK in the event of a breakout of hostilities, of course there are. I just find it doubtful that NATO would prod NK into a strike for strategic reasons.

I have my doubts whether China would let us in NK at all. It would seem to me that China could over run NK in days on it's own and keep the NK buffer between them and SK. And while the US could certainly take some action against Iran at the same time, I find this unlikely as well. They could barely fight the two war fronts in Afghanistan and Iraq at the same time. Iran and NK at the same time would be much more difficult, especially with a volunteer army.

reply to post by crankyoldman

Cosmic Top Secret is a Nato designation. Cosmic says that it is a Nato classification. Additionally, if the information related to the Atomic Energy Act (or UK) it would carry the additional term ATOMAL

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Have read quite a bit here about the underground tunnels and such that they have built in the recent past. One that could survive a nuclear detonation.

reply to post by Signals


I honestly don’t know anything about Russia’s involvement I would assume that they have not been informed. I cannot divulge how my source came across this information but she did say that the agreement was highly classified and known at the time to very few senior NATO and government officials so my guess would be that Russia was not informed of this agreement.

I do think however that if DPRK used a nuke and NATO launched a nuclear retaliation that included first strikes against other “rouge” states with nuclear weapons programs that other states would fall into line. That is to say if America launched a nuke at DPRK after they used a nuke first Russia would not complain as it would be seen as a justifiable action under such extraordinary circumstances. They might have a bit of a moan about it but I really don’t think they would actually do anything meaningful about it.

reply to post by METACOMET


To be clear I was not told that NATO was going to provoke DPRK into launching a nuclear weapon against South Korea. What I was told about was the plans that NATO has drawn up to prepare for a possible first strike by DPRK nuclear or otherwise and their cooperation with China in this matter.

Hmmmmm. Could it be that China will allow the war and the destruction of the north and then step in themselves to unify the peninsula but under their auspices not that of the United States (whose forces in the south would presumably be decimated before obliterating the north with the tacit approval and compliance of China)....?

All nations, all militaries, and all military alliances have contingency plans for every conceivable threat on planet Earth. That NATO has these plans is to be expected. That they are highly classified is also to be expected. It is sensitive information.

However, I would be willing to wager China is no longer on board with these plans as they are currently, OFFICIALLY cutting economic ties with the US.

I believe the OP is truthful here and that the reason he/she gleaned this info in the first place is because the source saw this as a situation that could come to fruition considering all of the sabre rattling from North Korea.

I see it differently though. I don't think there is a chance in hell China is on board with ANYTHING the West does right now.

Also, I too disagree that NATOs response would be Nuclear. We don't need nukes for the likes of Lil' Kim.

Here are the current, non secret operational plans. A look at these will give pretty good insight into our current game plan and suggests that the op's source is credible. The timeline and military strategy fits, let me explain.
NK Op Plans

It is quite conceivable that the US developed a post Bush white-house Op plan which remains top secret (the nato cosmic plan mentioned in the post). Obama has stated time and time again that he would not act unilaterally in a number of scenarios (Libya, Syria, Africa etc.) The Bush plan, OPLAN 5027-8 was predicated on unilateral action and based on the US fighting a two front war. What the op suggests is that the undisclosed source was privy to the new operational plan advocated for by the Obama white-house. This plan is dependent upon working alongside the Chinese. Chinese cooperation would solve a major problem regarding the inability to open a two front war in time to save Seoul. Without the opening of a two front war within a 5-30 day window the only way to save Seoul would be through the use of nuclear weapons, something I believe the US and China do not want.

If you read the history of all the military plans we have drawn up for the past 60 plus years, the major strategic unknown is how long Seoul could hold back an advance from NK. Some have concluded that the loss of Seoul in an nuclear or conventional engagement with the North is unavoidable and unacceptable. Most generals have agreed that Seoul would fall within 5 days and civilians and troops would have to retreat over a dozen miles to not be subjected to crushing artillery. The loss of life of civilians and american troops would be massive. If NK launched a nuke it would be an unthinkable tragedy.

Therefore to prevent Seoul from falling the plans call for a) nuclear strikes to deter a NKt army advance and decimate artillery emplacements or b) opening a second front on the coast or from the north which would divide NK forces and cut off their supplies from the north. Most troops at southern forward operating positions would likely surrender as soon as a counter offensive was underway.

This is where China comes in. US troops in the south could hold off an advance for between 5-30 days under the worst case/best case scenarios. Landing a US Marine Expeditionary Force (in division strength), the 82nd Airborne Division, and remaining South Korean divisions and marching towards Wonsan would take between 10-35 days (these are the boots on the ground, in the numbers which Generals suggest are needed to effectively launch a counter offensive). Without Chinese help we are looking at a 50/50 chance of landing the necessary troops in time to save thousands of american troops and the South Korean capital. We would not risk this and would use nuclear weapons.

We would obviously use crushing air power that would halt an infantry occupation of Seoul, but Seoul would be subject to continuous rocket and artillery barrage during this time. We simply do not have enough aircraft in range to take out all the hostile artillery/rocket emplacements without going nuclear. Further to win the war we would likely need to occupy the north with boots on the ground. Extensive tunnels and underground structures could protect the regime for quite sometime and protect them from non nuclear air-power. Merely look at how long it took us to find Saddam in Iraq, a place where we had total air superiority and significantly more forces.

If China were to intervene they would be able to open a second front within a day. China would be able to quickly put a tremendous amount of troops on the ground, easily over 10 divisions, around 100,000 troops (over 3 times the force the US would use in a counter offensive). With the additional power the the Chinese ground troops and aircraft in the North the Seoul would become totally defensible and secure. The war would be over very quickly with no need for nuclear weapons.

The resulting geopolitical situation is as follows.

US and China rush to Pyongyang, we get a divided Berlin like in WW2
or
We let China take Pyongyang (they will have a far larger force at the time than the US would)

The US doesn't become engaged in a costly and unpopular ground war in Asia. No nuclear weapons are used by the US and China (Russia stays happy) we all look like good guys. China extends their buffer, nears its borders closer to a US ally in SK, and gets rid of a costly NK and picks up some natural resources and a labor force in the process.

If the above fails (Seoul falls and we loose a ton of US troops to nuclear attacks, russia intervenes and China stabs us in the back), I could see the back up plan being the use of nuclear weapons and preemptive strikes across the globe on hostile actors AKA WW3.

Originally posted by whywhynot
reply to post by crankyoldman

 

Cosmic Top Secret is a Nato designation. Cosmic says that it is a Nato classification. Additionally, if the information related to the Atomic Energy Act (or UK) it would carry the additional term ATOMAL

I see, Atomal= short for atomic. Makes perfect sense. But, Cosmic is short for NATO? Or is the idea of using "NATO TOP SECRET" to obvious, even if as you stated Cosmic=Nato and everyone knows it?

Someone chose Cosmic, meaning beyond this realm, on purpose, not randomly or by throwing darts at list. I often wonder why folks who take the given "explanation" for something like this as the "reason" for something, they are not often the same. The world is run on legal definitions, symbols, by those WELL above any name you know, but the system trickles down and the selection of those symbols is really, really important. When a judge uses the term "understand" most folks say, "well, he just means do you get it?" No, the symbol "understand" means to "stand under" or "submit without reservation. So, when a judge, or lawmaker uses that term, they mean submission, not comprehension and the term is not chosen at random.

Here is an example of why it is so important. Ask the average person why we have a "war on poverty" and a "war on drugs" and they'll say, "ah, it just a euphemism, a way of stating how important the effort it is..." They'd be wrong, the "war" designation is a legal one, one that allows congress to keep the country in a state of emergency, which allows them to bypass the Constitution in almost every way. This emergency powers act can only be declared while at war, and more importantly, a "war ON American soil," but congress is reluctant to "declare" war, so the slight of hand is done. Do most congressman know this, obviously not as they are chosen because they are too dumb to know it. The word war is chosen with a very serious meaning.

"Rogue Nation" = nations who refuse to become a willing member of the IMF, not nations with bad governments, but ask anyone on the street and they'll say it means, "bad governments, those who are not free..."

Cosmic is a very specific reference, meaning the not of this realm. Make of that what you will, but Cosmic does not mean the same thing as say; League of Nations, or United Nations, or NATO Affiliates, it means - Cosmic.

reply to post by crankyoldman


From a legal stand point, everything you said about the the use of the word "war" giving powers under the war powers act is just flat out wrong. Most federal authority actually stems from the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, not any authority vested in the executive branch. For instance the Monsato protection act, assualt weapons bans, back round checks, immigration, etc are all argued under the commerce clause, as shocking as that may seem. (The commerce clause has been held to give congress very broad authority).

Also, when judges use the term "understand", they are using it in the lay, it has nothing to do about submission. Many laws use the terms reasonable person, knowledgeable, intent, premeditation e.t.c. Statutes either particularly define what these words mean, or they are intentionally vague to allow lawyers to argue the merits of specific cases. With the exception of some out dated theories on contract and wills law, there is no such thing as magic words which create loopholes in the american judicial or political system.

In a murder trial its up to a jury to determine what premeditation means.

In a civil torts trial a jury decides what a reasonable person is.

In a constitutional law case you are usually arguing what kind of objective scrutiny should the court employ based on the application through the 14th amendment, 1st amendment, 4 and 5 amendment, and the Commerce Clause. The level of scurrility are rational basis, intermediate, or strict, they are relatively simple standards to understand.

The study of law is difficult. Semantic arguments devoid of any policy to support them are generally not winning arguments politically or judiciously.