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.
Would a nuclear exchange with Russia necessary mean armageddon
page: 3share:
a reply to: Golantrevize
The alien presence on Earth will never allow a nuclear exchange to happen.
They have already proved to the US and Russia that they can not only launch our nukes but also shut them down, whenever THEY want to. And they are too ensconced and invested in our planet to let anything like that ruin their agenda.
Does Trump know this?
You can be sure Putin does and Obama probably does to.
Reagan knew this.
Big Bush knew this, so baby Bush probably knew it to.
And BIll you say?
He specifically stated that he asked about the aliens, but was told nothing. This may be true because you have to remember that the military viewed Billy Clinton as a pot smoking pinko draft dodger. Which is what one of the generals actually called him. That general had a 40 year career and was immediately discharged with no pension. The other military leaders knew this and immediately disliked Bill. So they might not have told him anything. Presidents come and go and things are on a need to know bases. But secrets told bring favors, so who knows. Judging by Hillary and Podesta's interest, Bill suspected as much but may not have known.
Does everybody feel better now?
The alien presence on Earth will never allow a nuclear exchange to happen.
They have already proved to the US and Russia that they can not only launch our nukes but also shut them down, whenever THEY want to. And they are too ensconced and invested in our planet to let anything like that ruin their agenda.
Does Trump know this?
You can be sure Putin does and Obama probably does to.
Reagan knew this.
Big Bush knew this, so baby Bush probably knew it to.
And BIll you say?
He specifically stated that he asked about the aliens, but was told nothing. This may be true because you have to remember that the military viewed Billy Clinton as a pot smoking pinko draft dodger. Which is what one of the generals actually called him. That general had a 40 year career and was immediately discharged with no pension. The other military leaders knew this and immediately disliked Bill. So they might not have told him anything. Presidents come and go and things are on a need to know bases. But secrets told bring favors, so who knows. Judging by Hillary and Podesta's interest, Bill suspected as much but may not have known.
Does everybody feel better now?
Wow...so many flawed and flat out incorrect answers here.
There is a reason there hasn't been a nuclear conflict since 1945...and that wasn't a "nuclear conflict", it was one nuclear power nuking a non-nuclear power. Shortly afterwards, when there was more than one nuclear opponent, the realities of nuclear war strategy came into sharp focus.
People talk about MAD, but MAD is nothing more than an observational inevitability, it's not a strategy, per se, as much as an outcome. The real issue (and answer to the OP'S question) is contained in another, much less trendy and far more sinister, acronym. It is known as UIOLI. This is the strategy which drives MAD. So what does UIOLI stand for??? "Use It, Or Lose It". And it is because of this there can never be a limited nuclear conflict between two or more nuclear capable nations. They have to put everything they've got in the air before the lose the ability to deliver it effectively. You don't gamble with nukes! You don't "hope" the other guy comes to his senses. "Hope" is not a strategy, sadly. It's all or nothing...and there's no winner.
The 'no winner' concept is also a strategy of sorts. Strategists already know they won't "win", but they can ensure the other guy "loses" just as badly. That's a strategy, horrific and tragic, but it is a strategy.
There is a reason there hasn't been a nuclear conflict since 1945...and that wasn't a "nuclear conflict", it was one nuclear power nuking a non-nuclear power. Shortly afterwards, when there was more than one nuclear opponent, the realities of nuclear war strategy came into sharp focus.
People talk about MAD, but MAD is nothing more than an observational inevitability, it's not a strategy, per se, as much as an outcome. The real issue (and answer to the OP'S question) is contained in another, much less trendy and far more sinister, acronym. It is known as UIOLI. This is the strategy which drives MAD. So what does UIOLI stand for??? "Use It, Or Lose It". And it is because of this there can never be a limited nuclear conflict between two or more nuclear capable nations. They have to put everything they've got in the air before the lose the ability to deliver it effectively. You don't gamble with nukes! You don't "hope" the other guy comes to his senses. "Hope" is not a strategy, sadly. It's all or nothing...and there's no winner.
The 'no winner' concept is also a strategy of sorts. Strategists already know they won't "win", but they can ensure the other guy "loses" just as badly. That's a strategy, horrific and tragic, but it is a strategy.
edit on 4/7/2017 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: Golantrevize
a reply to: FauxMulder
100s of nuclear bomb have exploaded already on earth. If it was only a few bombs i dont see the fallout being such a huge problem.
All you gotta do is go for the power grids. Whoever is without power grids is royally screwed.
a reply to: Golantrevize
It would pretty much be game over for the human race as shown by this model:
www.nucleardarkness.org...
It would pretty much be game over for the human race as shown by this model:
www.nucleardarkness.org...
originally posted by: MisterSpock
I used to have this bookmarked, couldn't find it. Came up with an easy search though.
nuclearsecrecy.com...
I picked washington, dc a 100MT Tsar and a ground blast.
over 2 million dead, fallout would stretch all the way to maine.
Badass map... I feel like I'm being monitored by the gov now for looking at it, lol...
originally posted by: khnum
Well last year Russia did a live drill with 40 million citizens getting to shelters etc in a simulated attack whilst in the USA you have something called duck and cover I believe
Is that where we used to have to get under our desks and cover our head with a Math book?
originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: LSU0408
Yep I prefer the instruction,'in case of nuclear attack duck under this urinal it hasn't been hit yet.'
We were told to go the north side of the house and get in the bathtub. Problem was the bathtub was on the east side of the house.
Maybe that was in case of a Tornado... Nevermind!
a reply to: Golantrevize
3 Words. Mutual-Assured-Destruction. When both sides have them...they will will use them until both sides are done, the people dead or dying, and all the lands and buildings, etc....radioactive for years....with no more sunlight from the black nuclear dust circling the globe for years and years.
Once it starts...put your head between your legs and kiss your butt goodbye...if you stay alive that long.
It'll prob. be more like "What was th.....!?" Poof
3 Words. Mutual-Assured-Destruction. When both sides have them...they will will use them until both sides are done, the people dead or dying, and all the lands and buildings, etc....radioactive for years....with no more sunlight from the black nuclear dust circling the globe for years and years.
Once it starts...put your head between your legs and kiss your butt goodbye...if you stay alive that long.
It'll prob. be more like "What was th.....!?" Poof
a reply to: Golantrevize
Yes, of course it would.
A shooting war between these two would instantly collapse into a nuclear conflict. The only type of war that can ever be fought between these factions without necessitating nuclear action on either of their parts, is proxy war, and the shady matter of espionage.
That is why Syria and the Middle East more generally look like they do at the moment, why Afghanistan for example went from advanced, sophisticated beacon of progress, to shattered, dark ages remnant. These locations have been used as both the playing board, and the pawns in massive venting exercises between the two superpowers since before I was born. Afghanistan is the biggest and most relevant example at the moment, because it was the crucible in which Osama Bin Laden was forged as a CIA asset, against the soviets, which has had knock on effects, but has also escaped the notice of better than half of people in the West, which is why they find it hard to understand the connection between the US intelligence services and the fundamentalists in the Middle East, why they are incapable of proper skepticism when it comes to the origins of the power of these groups, what their real purpose is in the world.
Yes, of course it would.
A shooting war between these two would instantly collapse into a nuclear conflict. The only type of war that can ever be fought between these factions without necessitating nuclear action on either of their parts, is proxy war, and the shady matter of espionage.
That is why Syria and the Middle East more generally look like they do at the moment, why Afghanistan for example went from advanced, sophisticated beacon of progress, to shattered, dark ages remnant. These locations have been used as both the playing board, and the pawns in massive venting exercises between the two superpowers since before I was born. Afghanistan is the biggest and most relevant example at the moment, because it was the crucible in which Osama Bin Laden was forged as a CIA asset, against the soviets, which has had knock on effects, but has also escaped the notice of better than half of people in the West, which is why they find it hard to understand the connection between the US intelligence services and the fundamentalists in the Middle East, why they are incapable of proper skepticism when it comes to the origins of the power of these groups, what their real purpose is in the world.
a reply to: TrueBrit
You're totally on point, man.
Isn't it scary that the same groups who push for globalism are the same groups who essentially control each state's path? They make it dangerous so that the one world agenda is the safer, less violent option; No divisions and all that.
Maybe it's just me.
You're totally on point, man.
Isn't it scary that the same groups who push for globalism are the same groups who essentially control each state's path? They make it dangerous so that the one world agenda is the safer, less violent option; No divisions and all that.
Maybe it's just me.
edit on 8-4-2017 by PRSpinster because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-4-2017 by PRSpinster because: (no
reason given)
Nuclear exchange. ...hmm, sounds ok, doesn't it?
The reality behind that massive understatement is whole cities full of people being immolated in radioactive fire.
no way will it stop with a couple on each side because the first targets are likely to be the other sides command and control centres and missile facilities. Anyone thinking that a country will sit on its hands while watching the impending destruction of their ability to strike back is deluded.
The reality behind that massive understatement is whole cities full of people being immolated in radioactive fire.
no way will it stop with a couple on each side because the first targets are likely to be the other sides command and control centres and missile facilities. Anyone thinking that a country will sit on its hands while watching the impending destruction of their ability to strike back is deluded.
originally posted by: LSU0408
originally posted by: khnum
Well last year Russia did a live drill with 40 million citizens getting to shelters etc in a simulated attack whilst in the USA you have something called duck and cover I believe
Is that where we used to have to get under our desks and cover our head with a Math book?
youtu.be...
a reply to: PRSpinster
I do not think that the globalist agenda can necessarily be focused upon realistically in this instance. Look at the people benefiting from the last forty years of foreign policy.
Globalist does not really describe these people very well, in that many of them seek power for themselves, rather than for the people of the Earth. Many of them amass vast wealth, and use it only to purchase more wealth, more growth of their preferred market, the arms market, the intelligence markets. They own the companies who maintain the systems at places like the NSA, own the companies that make the bombs, the bullets, the very stuff of war, either the companies themselves, or shares therein. They sell their wares to all sides, both the intelligence tools and the wargear, playing nations against one another, profiting from the carnage created between them, on soil foreign to both.
These are not the actions of a globalist. Boiled down to it, the real globalist wants the people to be the only power in the world. The resident, the citizen. They want no corporate oversight, no government besides the will of the human race made manifest. That is true globalism. What we are talking about here is something else, a world wide oligarchy, where only a limited few even have the right to expect to benefit from their work, if you can call what they do work at all, where everyone else is so busy dodging bullets or struggling for financial survival, that they cannot, in good enough numbers, spend time cogitating on how to end the spiraling descent they see around them, in their nation and their world, or even how to perceive the spiral in a broader sense than their limited, local experience permits.
I do not think that the globalist agenda can necessarily be focused upon realistically in this instance. Look at the people benefiting from the last forty years of foreign policy.
Globalist does not really describe these people very well, in that many of them seek power for themselves, rather than for the people of the Earth. Many of them amass vast wealth, and use it only to purchase more wealth, more growth of their preferred market, the arms market, the intelligence markets. They own the companies who maintain the systems at places like the NSA, own the companies that make the bombs, the bullets, the very stuff of war, either the companies themselves, or shares therein. They sell their wares to all sides, both the intelligence tools and the wargear, playing nations against one another, profiting from the carnage created between them, on soil foreign to both.
These are not the actions of a globalist. Boiled down to it, the real globalist wants the people to be the only power in the world. The resident, the citizen. They want no corporate oversight, no government besides the will of the human race made manifest. That is true globalism. What we are talking about here is something else, a world wide oligarchy, where only a limited few even have the right to expect to benefit from their work, if you can call what they do work at all, where everyone else is so busy dodging bullets or struggling for financial survival, that they cannot, in good enough numbers, spend time cogitating on how to end the spiraling descent they see around them, in their nation and their world, or even how to perceive the spiral in a broader sense than their limited, local experience permits.
a reply to: LSU0408
that would be Duck And Cover.
you know i always thought how sad it was that they never told people that if your in the blast radius the you should always place your head between your knees and kiss your a@@ good bye.
Is that where we used to have to get under our desks and cover our head with a Math book?
that would be Duck And Cover.
you know i always thought how sad it was that they never told people that if your in the blast radius the you should always place your head between your knees and kiss your a@@ good bye.
edit on 8-4-2017 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
a reply to: Golantrevize
The alien presence on Earth will never allow a nuclear exchange to happen.
They have already proved to the US and Russia that they can not only launch our nukes but also shut them down, whenever THEY want to. And they are too ensconced and invested in our planet to let anything like that ruin their agenda.
That would be wonderful but if it's true why they played proxy in Ukraine, now in Syria knowing that Rus can not nuke them?
new topics
-
Potter to WHU
World Sports: 1 hours ago -
Dr. Demento
Music: 3 hours ago -
The elephant in the room (wearing a hoodie)
US Political Madness: 3 hours ago -
To become president, Zelensky had to learn Ukrainian
Political Conspiracies: 10 hours ago
top topics
-
Green Grapes
General Chit Chat: 13 hours ago, 6 flags -
To become president, Zelensky had to learn Ukrainian
Political Conspiracies: 10 hours ago, 6 flags -
The elephant in the room (wearing a hoodie)
US Political Madness: 3 hours ago, 6 flags -
Dr. Demento
Music: 3 hours ago, 2 flags -
Potter to WHU
World Sports: 1 hours ago, 1 flags
active topics
-
Post A Funny (T&C Friendly) Pic Part IV: The LOL awakens!
General Chit Chat • 8006 • : underpass61 -
Dr. Demento
Music • 6 • : mysterioustranger -
To become president, Zelensky had to learn Ukrainian
Political Conspiracies • 16 • : DontTreadOnMe -
Los Angeles brush fires latest: 2 blazes threaten structures, prompt evacuations
Mainstream News • 127 • : Xtrozero -
The elephant in the room (wearing a hoodie)
US Political Madness • 11 • : Xtrozero -
Planned Civil War In Britain May Be Triggered Soon
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 28 • : BedevereTheWise -
My personal experiences and understanding of orbs
Aliens and UFOs • 40 • : ufoorbhunter -
Trump says ownership of Greenland 'is an absolute necessity'
Other Current Events • 67 • : xuenchen -
Steering the Titantic from the Drydock.
Rant • 45 • : Freeborn -
Potter to WHU
World Sports • 1 • : gortex