It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

America hides its nuke arsenal - They new Syria would start WW3

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Remember all those troop moments across the U.S ?
They were just exercises right?
Perhaps they were more than that , perhaps they were a cover for the movement of nukes before the planned World War by U.S Government officials and the Axis of the New World Order.


Solid evidence from within the intelligence community confirms that the US, Britain and France knew of the August 21 Sarin attacks in advance. More evidence, including intercepted emails, show that top Pentagon intelligence officials were actively involved in planning the attacks.



There is clear evidence that the US moved and restructured major nuclear commands predicting both the nuclear confrontation we see with Russia over Syria and a possible mutiny within US forces.



This was done before the Syrian gassing incident, evidence that a “retaliatory” missile attack on Syria was planned before there was anything to retaliate against.


More at link :- www.veteranstoday.com...
edit on 9-9-2013 by Pinkorchid because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Why? Nuclear weapons are stored in secure bunkers, and silos. If you move them you make them more vulnerable, and harder to use. Then you have to either move them back to the platforms that use them, or move the platforms to them. There's no reason to move them. Two thirds of the US arsenal is on missiles, which means subs and silos, which means very difficult to kill, almost impossible to kill before they launch.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   
When they move nuclear weapons, it looks like a parade a blind man would realize was happening from 5 miles away. Literally...and I'm dead serious. I've seen them moving the Minuteman II stuff twice. The vehicles carrying the parts of the Missile itself were enormous but the Apache gunships overhead and parade of openly armed military vehicles leading and trailing from both directions were a sight I'll never forget. I saw this both times in Wyoming.

If they were shuffling nukes? It wouldn't be that covert these days, IMO. The days of having well oiled and wll maintained systems to play 3 card monty for the Russian satellites are long gone, IMO.

That's the other point...... There are levels of 'fear' in this. I AM afraid we'll see our nation slip off the edge of anything like stability or prosperity while this event being the last signpost before the fall. However...... After living a time in this nation where *REAL* destruction was always a possible outcome to every single day we all awoke? Syria is no threat to the U.S. as a WHOLE. They present no threat...NONE...that would require movement of the strategic weapons.


edit on 9-9-2013 by wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinkorchid
 





More at link :- www.veteranstoday.com...


And the original source for this story comes from Press Tv, which is an Iranian based news company.

Press Tv is not the most credible source when it comes to news about the US.

But hey, that is just my opinion of them.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Why? Nuclear weapons are stored in secure bunkers, and silos. If you move them you make them more vulnerable, and harder to use. Then you have to either move them back to the platforms that use them, or move the platforms to them. There's no reason to move them. Two thirds of the US arsenal is on missiles, which means subs and silos, which means very difficult to kill, almost impossible to kill before they launch.


1. were these some of the supposed destroyed nukes from that agreement about Non-Proliferation?

2. will admitting that US has hidden them instead of destroying them have any treaty ramifications with the UN?

3. the nukes were undoubtedly going to a false flag, a HUGE one to kick off ww3;


If the ELites cant have the world, nobody will. They will try and DESTROY everything before they give up.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by HanzHenry
 


The arms reduction treaty (not non proliferation) that reduced both the US and Russian arsenals had observers from both sides watching as warheads were destroyed. So unless both sides are lying the warheads were destroyed.


Oh wait, sorry, forgot where i was for a minute.


Ermagherd! WWIII! Weze gunna die!



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinkorchid
 


What we have below is a claim that nukes are being moved to South Carolina and also another claim that a high level military source that nukes are being moved to South Carolina.

Now this is interesting , because we have the Senator Lindsay Graham warning of a possible nuke strike on Charleston Harbour warning that lack of military action on Syria my cause this.
www.libertariannews.org...


Dyess is beginning to move out nuclear war heads today. I got a tap from DERMO earlier. He said it was the first time they have been even acknowledged since being put there in the 80′s. No signature was required for transfer… There was no directive. He said that Dyess Commander was on site to give authority to release. No one knew where they were going really, but the truck driver said to take them to South Carolina and another pick up will take them from there.”


www.infowars.com...



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinkorchid
 


That story has more holes than in it than you can count, besides being totally idiotic. One of their "investigators" called and "confirmed" that they were moving nuclear weapons by asking the base operator that answered the phone. So we have a super secret decoder ring level project, but the base operator knows about it, and is telling anyone that asks that they really are doing it? Uhm.....beyond no.

Add to that the fact that Dyess is out of the nuclear mission, and has been for years, so why are there nuclear weapons there? And his source code name "Dermo" or der'mo in Russian slang means "s###".

As for Graham, he's gaming the system. Charleston is the fourth largest port in the US. That means there are three ports, and god knows how many cities that are better targets than Charleston. But he can't say that if he wants to get money for his latest pet project, whatever that is, or for the port in general.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


This is the video detailing the conversation with the base and the attendant seems to slip up and mention the word weapon , when not asked.. strange.




posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinkorchid
 






This is the video detailing the conversation with the base and the attendant seems to slip up and mention the word weapon , when not asked.. strange.


Well, since it comes from Alex Jones and infowars it has to be true...



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Pinkorchid
 




Add to that the fact that Dyess is out of the nuclear mission, and has been for years, so why are there nuclear weapons there? And his source code name "Dermo" or der'mo in Russian slang means "s###".


Here in America the word "DERMO" means skin or covering for a body. So it could be said that Dermo could be "cover"? Very easy to manipulate words for personal benifit/persuasion. Just thought I'd point that out on a friendly note.



Back to relevant topic info..... I don't put anything past the government anymore. I believe there will be another attack somewhere for some reason to kick off our new WWIII scenario and it will be FAKED jus like 9/11 was. The most powerful, high teck , free'est most intelligent country's was literally (excuse my use of words please) rapped and lied to..... America bought it hook, line , and stinker



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinkorchid
 

I'm not buying the story.

- Nuclear materials and missiles are stored in special sites and in special silos. To move them would make them MORE vulnerable to attack .. not protect them from it.

- 'mutiny of US forces during nuclear attack' ... full mutiny? .... sounds like a far left fantasy. I can see some high level officers, behind closed doors, telling Obama to go screw off but I don't see an all out military coup or defection.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by Pinkorchid
 

I'm not buying the story.

- Nuclear materials and missiles are stored in special sites and in special silos. To move them would make them MORE vulnerable to attack .. not protect them from it.

- 'mutiny of US forces during nuclear attack' ... full mutiny? .... sounds like a far left fantasy. I can see some high level officers, behind closed doors, telling Obama to go screw off but I don't see an all out military coup or defection.




Nukes are stationed and carried throughout the world...... Submarines carry nukes and are stationed at every continent around the world? So yes they do travel without public knowledge. surface to air missiles in silos probably wouldn't have traveled though?

As far as a full mutant no.... but I could see some American soldiers not wanting to enforce martial law on fellow Americans? Doesn't sound too crazy to me?

Everything I say is only conjecture, educated opinion, and speculation.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinkorchid
 

As Zaphod says,why would any country want to move their strategic nukes?, were you perhaps alluding to the movement of tactical nuclear weapons such as free-fall air dropped systems or artillery shells? Again, these weapons are stored in purpose built facilities with very strict regulation on their transportation.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Pinkorchid
 


That story has more holes than in it than you can count, besides being totally idiotic. One of their "investigators" called and "confirmed" that they were moving nuclear weapons by asking the base operator that answered the phone. So we have a super secret decoder ring level project, but the base operator knows about it, and is telling anyone that asks that they really are doing it? Uhm.....beyond no.

Add to that the fact that Dyess is out of the nuclear mission, and has been for years, so why are there nuclear weapons there? And his source code name "Dermo" or der'mo in Russian slang means "s###".

As for Graham, he's gaming the system. Charleston is the fourth largest port in the US. That means there are three ports, and god knows how many cities that are better targets than Charleston. But he can't say that if he wants to get money for his latest pet project, whatever that is, or for the port in general.


On the nuclear mission..

There are nukes hidden places for safety reasons. Sometimes they are moved around.

ORNL... enough said.


You act like you KNOW IT ALL.. and KNOW where all nuke material is.

MY father was a minuteman missile instructor and my family has held clearances at ORNL for decades.. Clearances that are very, very stringent.

YOU DONT KNOW CRAP about nuke facilities!



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by HanzHenry
 


I know more than most, but I don't know it all, and don't pretend to. But what's the point of having nuclear weapons at a base that isn't in the nuclear mission? The idea is to protect them, and have them nearby the assets that use them, so you can load them quickly. If you need to use them, chances are there are warheads incoming already, so you sure as hell aren't going to fly bombers to a different base to load them. Or load them in trucks and drive them to another base.

If you have to load them quickly, and they're at Dyess, you're screwed. The only bases that are in the nuclear mission with bombers are Barksdale in Louisiana, Minot in North Dakota, and Whiteman in Missouri. You would have to fly in from one of those bases, and load up. You're going to lose the weapons, and the bombers something was coming in.

But now who's acting like they know it all?
edit on 9/9/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/9/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I think the USA stand on Syria will be the one of 'Russia and China, you want to back it, you will be responsible for it. America will wait this one out.'

Russia will be the ones who put Syria into check. They have a lot to gain from their show of power, THEY need to back it up. America has no need to start a WWIII, neither does Russia or China.

We all have nukes. Hidden and shown, the major powers now all have nukes. Syria won't start WWIII, WWIII was already started... WWIII isn't a WW of nukes - it is what we see everyday on the news IMO.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinkorchid
 


That's the problem though. They don't tell people that aren't directly involved when they're transferring a nuclear weapon unless they absolutely have to. Why in gods name would what appears to be a base operator know that they were transferring nuclear weapons around? A base operator that doesn't have a security clearance, and who is there to transfer calls around? Even if it's not an operator but someone involved, there is no way they'd "slip up" and mention that they were transferring nuclear weapons around.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Zaph
You know I usually agree .......you know your stuff dude
But this does tie together some interesting dots, not saying I believe it to be true.......but don't dismiss it



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Neocrusader
 


I'm not dismissing it out of hand, just saying that there are a LOT of holes in the story that don't make sense. Things about this just really don't add up to me.




top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join