It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NATO to send missiles to Turkey-Syria border - Threat of Chemical weapons from Syria?

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link o-agrees-to-patriot-missiles-along-turkey-syria-border/4408608

NATO warned Syria's president Bashar al-Assad not to use chemical weapons as it approved the deployment of Patriot interceptor missile batteries on the border of neighbouring Turkey. The warning from NATO secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen came as US government sources said Washington had information Syria was making what could be seen as preparations to use its chemical arsenal.

edit on 5-12-2012 by expatwhite because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 06:16 AM
Sorry, didnt see this and been a while since i posted a thread! Apologies if done it wrong. I havent seen this threat of chemical warfare before? Would NATO be forced to launch a massive first strike if it genuinely felt that Turkey was threatened by chemical warfare?

And if so, would it have to be tactical nukes to ensure no retaliation

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 06:26 AM
Technically, NATO would be fully at war if Syria directly threatened Turkey's sovreignty, chemical attack would be easily considered that. In reality, it would be Turkey's call exactly how to proceed for the most part, as they would be the aggrieved party. And I'm sure they'd have NATO's full attention over something like that. Massive assault would be extremely probable if a chem attack happened, I should expect.

Personally, I think Assad is being setup, but I don't think it will get this far.

All that aside, is the ME so barren of weapons that the US really needs to be sending more stuff at this time?
edit on 5-12-2012 by HabiruThorstein because: grammar

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 07:16 AM
But would there need to be an actual attack for Turkey to decide how to respond? If its being "threatened" with chemical weapons, then is that justification in itself for a massive first strike? My dad always said with fighting, "get your retaliation in first"

If i was in Turkey and the threat was real, then i would sure as hell want my Government to take out the threat long before it was used on me. And the only was to completely guarantee the enemy couldnt use their chemical weapon stockpile would be to obliterate them from the face of the planet.

Just have to hope its all bluff and rhetoric i guess

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 07:36 AM
Where've we heard this story before... after being taken in over the similar Iraq story initially, which turned out to come from an Italian with a "dodgy dossier", I'm not going to be taken in again.

top topics

log in