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

page: 6
24
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by brace22
Out of all the theories and stories I have heard over the last few weeks about this situation, this is definitely the one I would most say is the truth.


There is only ONE person who considers (or at least claims so) a nuclear option, this is Kim Un. If you think that ANY sane country, the US, China etc. would immediately refer to nuclear weapons to obliterate the NK peninsula (even IF NK would have used one in a pre-emptive strike) you are wrong.

Not only would it be not in anyone's "interest" to nuke Korea, it would also not make any strategical or military sense to use nukes to wipe out installations in NK.

Let alone from the entirely insane idea that a conflict with NK would be used by "NATO" as an "opportunity" to nuke Iran and Syria.

Sorry..nice story. But entirely bogus and absurd.

Edit:

As absurd as the idea of an employee of "NATO" spilling alleged "cosmic TOP Secret" details to a friend which then find its way into a public website on the internet for everyone to read.

The fact that he didn't mention any country but instead refers to "NATO" in a rather vague way is another red flag that this entire story is as bogus as it can even get.
edit on 3-4-2013 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by flexy123
 


I don think you are getting what I am saying, I am saying that I have been told that in the event North Korea was to FIRST detonate a nuclear weapon in anger NATO Forces would respond with a American led nuclear retaliation against North Korean military instillations. If you think that America would let someone detonate a nuke in anger and not respond with a nuclear strike then you are deluded. There is no chance in hell that America would sit back and let DPRK detonate a nuke with you a similar show of force in retaliation.



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by flexy123
 


First of all I am being deliberately vague with my source, if you want to go back and look over my previous threads and you will see that this is the one and only time I have ever created a thread like this. I don’t make a habit of it and to be honest this is probably the only time I will ever bother to post something like this.

Now on the issue of nukes, I was told that they would only be used in the incredibly unlikely situation that North Korea was to use on in anger first. I was told that NATO led by America would retaliate with a tactical nuclear attack as a show of force and further more would also seek to cripple the nuclear capability of Syria (who in 2009 when these plans were being drawn up had a known nuclear link to DPRK) and Iran would also have their nuclear facilities destroyed. The western world would quite rightly state that any use of a nuke by DPRK would demonstrate that other “Rouge states” are willing to use them and use this as the justification for these attacks.

That really however is a bit of a side point as its in the extremely unlikely event that the North uses one. What is a bigger point is the change in Chinese policy, they have agreed that they would effectively assist SK and American forces if the war was to restart.



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 06:13 AM
link   
The whole scenario is already written down.

May I suggest to those interested in that type of events (It reminds me so much of Cuba) to read something about Graham Allisson's "Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis" : this makes it all clear.

Here is a short description : en.wikipedia.org...

It basically, very basically, comes down to saying that there is a hidden agenda behind this all, maybe carried by the American army, who is cunningly whispering it into the President's ear. (just a hypothesis).

But besides the army, who else is wearing the trousers in Washington? Who else could it be whispering into the horse Obama's ear? you tell me.



posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Great thread, OP. I haven't poked around the Gray Area, but I do like that the responses are much more supportive under this topic than almost all the others on ATS as of late. Makes me wonder if some of the gubbament employees are logging on more frequently, lol.

Anyhow, this would be the best scenario, hands down, for all involved. I pray China has enough sense to not be in bed with NK and Kim what's his name. However, my paranoid side makes me think of what China could gain if the good 'ol USA fell into yet another major war...

Our recent economical upswing could take a nose dive to depths that weren't seen even during the depression years. Just scary stuff all around. Hope that Kim Jung-Il or what ever his name is takes a Xanax, or something, and calms his siht.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I think that if it is going to be a war, I believe that US (and eventually a NATO ally, probably the UK) will retaliate using conventional weapons only.

North Korea (NK) most likely has only a few nuclear warheads (less than 6) and their availability, accuracy and reliability is highly questionable.

On the other side, the US forces alone can face and win a war with NK in less than a week without resourcing to instant sushine buckets (aka nukes). With F-22 and F-15 providing top cover and instantanly gaining air supremacy (not just air superiority), B-2´s slamming strategic targets with precise JDAM´s and JSOW´s, and other tatical aircraft (F-15E´s, A-10´s and using B-1 in a tatical way) will devastate most of NK´s military capabilities within the above timeframe.

Meaningless333



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


Are you saying I made some reference to China nuking us? Don't see where I even hinted to that...I was proposing that China would not aid North Korea directly..





new topics
top topics
 
24
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join