This topic is in the War On Terrorism discussion forum.  (rss)


Clinton Had Plans to Nuke N. Korea in 1998




Topic started on 8-11-2004 @ 07:38 AM by BlackJackal


Recently declassified papers indicate that under "Scenario 5027" The US would drop 24 Nuclear bombs on North Korea if the communist nation launched a pre-emptive strike on South Korea. The papers have surfaced as the Korean Pennisula fears a tougher stance against North Korea from George W. Bush.

Another interesting item of note is that the US has Nuclear warheads in South Korea in 1998 even though the official answer has been all warheads were removed in 1991.



Seoul, South Korea, Nov. 7 (UPI) -- Newly declassified documents revealed the United States planned as recently as 1998 to drop nuclear bombs on North Korea if the country attacked South Korea.

As part of "scenario 5027," 24 F15-E bombers flew simulation missions at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina to drop mock nuclear bombs on a firing range between January and June 1998, the Korea Times reported Sunday.

The revelation followed claims by a South Korean lawmaker that the U.S. drew up plans to launch preemptive strikes on key targets in North Korea in 1994.



www.washtimes.com...



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 8-11-2004 @ 07:48 AM by build319


I hope this article will get people off the notion that not everything doomsdays scenario began while Bush was in office.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 8-11-2004 @ 07:50 AM by Gazrok


We have revolving plans to nuke every nation on Earth in response to any variety of scenarios. It's war gaming, and it's done by every nation on Earth. We have plans for the trajectory of launching a nuke at Luxembourgh of course.... Just because the contingency is planned for, doesn't make it something that is being actively pursued...

As for US nukes in SK, you have to keep in mind, you can have a sub off the coast, have no nukes IN SK, but still USE them to attack NK

"Greetings Professor Falken.....would you like to play a game?"



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 8-11-2004 @ 08:40 AM by syntaxer


You guys ever play that boardgame Risk? It's alotta fun huh!

Especially when the stakes are risen and the fate of humanity is at the hands of Player 1 & 2.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 8-11-2004 @ 08:47 AM by FredT


Im surprised that they would risk the NK airspace with F-15E's Seems more like a job for the B-2 if you really want to get down to brass tacks



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 8-11-2004 @ 08:50 AM by SpittinCobra



Originally posted by build319
I hope this article will get people off the notion that not everything doomsdays scenario began while Bush was in office.


He just happens to be the person in power, at times things have gone wrong.

[edit on 8-11-2004 by SpittinCobra]



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 8-11-2004 @ 08:54 AM by Kidfinger


It sounds more like a warning to NK more than anything. Everyone should know by now that we have plans to attack every country in the world. They are called contingency plans. It seems to me that this particular plan was leaked as a warning to North korea. I guess the talks are not going as well as hoped for. Also, if this plan were ever carried out, it would be don with Neuclear subs. The NAVY would be launching first strike on NK. That would be followed by airstrikes from the Air Force.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 8-11-2004 @ 09:29 AM by Djarums


Cheers to Clinton's staff for this plan.

A responsibility of the government is to never be caught with its pants down when it comes to global conflicts isn't it? This wasn't intended as a plan that would happen on a specific date. It was a plan, a plan that would hopefully never ever happen, but a plan nonetheless.

Personally I find it reassuring (while I don't agree with nuking anyone) when the government runs through plans like this because I see it as an effort to be prepared for things to happen.

Bear in mind when criticizing this that no one nuked NK, it was a hypothetical situation.

Had more of this gone on perhaps clearer better plans might have been in place that could have helped us with 9/11 and its response and even a better organized Iraq. Planning and testing yourself against all possible events is responsible leadership. I'd rather a military that met challenges earlier in drills and plans than one that responds with "Holy Crap ummm"



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 8-11-2004 @ 01:16 PM by Gazrok


We wouldn't need nukes for a first strike... Tomohawks from ships, F17s (and likely a few Raptors) would go in with the B2's and take out the air defenses, then they'd carpet bomb with B52s on military and industrial targets. F15s and other assorted aircraft would maintain air superiority while carrying out other sorties as well...

but as I mentioned, and another pointed out...


it was a hypothetical situation.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 8-11-2004 @ 01:22 PM by ShadowXIX


So do we have contingency plans to even attack countries like Canada?

And they would have contingency plans to attck the US?



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 8-11-2004 @ 02:17 PM by eh7879


According to this article the North Koreans would be able to win a nuclear exchange with the US...who knows but it would be a bad situation no matter what spin you put on it!

cfkap.com...



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 8-11-2004 @ 02:38 PM by x_y_no



Originally posted by eh7879
According to this article the North Koreans would be able to win a nuclear exchange with the US...who knows but it would be a bad situation no matter what spin you put on it!

cfkap.com...


The notion of anyone "winning" a nuclear exchange with the US is absurd.

Anyway, that link is rife with errors. For instance, NK does not have the capacity to target "the whole Metropolitan USA with nuclear warheads." Nor will even a redoubled production effort result in "hundreds" of warheads in a mere four years. More like an additional seven or eight, at worst.

That page reads like North Korean propaganda.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 8-11-2004 @ 03:24 PM by cheesegoduk



Originally posted by ShadowXIX
So do we have contingency plans to even attack countries like Canada?

And they would have contingency plans to attck the US?


Yup, your greatest ally today could be your greatest enemy tomorrow. Say a coup replaced the government in Canada really quickly with a facist nazi like order that threated the USA, you wouldn't have much time to plan, so its all been pre planned now.

No doubt we(UK) also have plans to wipe France off the map, perhaps even plans to counterattack the USA if it nuked England(Our subs have orders locked away in a safe that are carried out if the UK is destoried)

I fully understand the reasoning behind these plans, they are there "just in case"



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 










Top Topics Right Now:



Active Topics Right Now:



ATS MIX Podcasts:











Newest Topics:
































ATS Server: www4.theabovenetwork.com
Powered by AboveTop:Board v2.3
Header data processed in 0.002 seconds
Page processed in 0.091 seconds
6 total database queries (1)









The Above Top Secret Conspiracy Community Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.





thread
Forums Directory