Nuclear weapons used in Afghanistan?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
(I searched for an Afghanistan thread...none found....)

This story published today in the BBC looks as if there is a strong possibility that some variety of mini-nuke(?) may have used in Afghanistan.



The first of Bush's wars looks like it was sold on partial lies (namely to "get al qaida" and unseat the Taliban), when the more likely (and unsellable) reasons were to build that Caspian oil pipeline, install a puppet regime (Karzai) and use one of the most inaccessible and remote parts of the planet to field-test new controversial weapons on a human population that the Bush administration most probably regards as "expendable" (my emphasis).
«1345

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 82
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Fantastic.



    Let me make some popcorn and watch another SJO/radioactive weapon thread unfold!
  • Reply 2 of 82
    xterra48xterra48 Posts: 169member
    Although the information is starteling, and I hate Bush I don't think he is stupid enough to do something like this. Maby alqueda/taliban attempted dirty bomb in desperation (if sensors with troops picked it up they wpold stop and go back)but the winds changed? who knows, it is not a certanty of anything is what i'm saying.



    Personaly when the whole mini-nuke-bunker-buster concept came on to the scene, I developed my own (non nuclear) soluton. Have a sattelite containing 4 rv (reentry vehicle), each rv has shielding, mini-rocket motor, fule, computer, and guide fins. When called to action and plugged with gps coordinates the rv plots its decent from space and travles through the atmosphere, once the shielding is no longer neded and the projectile is through the upper atmosphere and headed twords its target the casing holding all named components breaks away leaving a hardened metal prolectile (2 feet long that looks like a sphere fused to a cone, and a gps housing with srevo fins fitting snugly over the cone for fine tuning to the target)to strike the target bunker at 15,000 mph (or more!) creating a crater and obliterating any subterrinian structure. The greatness is twofold, one that it needs no explosive, the orbital momentum of 18,000mph packs all the wallop, and two that it cuts reaction time.
  • Reply 3 of 82
    enaena Posts: 667member
    We'll, what that story DOESN'T tell you is that GWB actually used the mini nukes to send a sub-space e-pulse to communicate with the alien fleet parked on the dark side of the moon. He lied about going to war in Afghanistan because if he tried to signal the fleet from the usual Nevada sites, the Sierra Club would have objected.



    Apparently trusted sources claim that GWB has traded the freedom of the solar system---including the First Lady---for a time share in Rio populated by topless Swedish supermodels. Vice President Cheney has also been implicated in this horrifying plot in exchange for Elle Mcpherson and an off-shore oil platform that is reportedly within jet-pack distance of New Orleans.



    ...Developing.
  • Reply 4 of 82
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ena

    We'll, what that story DOESN'T tell you is that GWB actually used the mini nukes to send a sub-space e-pulse to communicate with the alien fleet parked on the dark side of the moon. He lied about going to war in Afghanistan because if he tried to signal the fleet from the usual Nevada sites, the Sierra Club would have objected.



    Apparently trusted sources claim that GWB has traded the freedom of the solar system---including the First Lady---for a time share in Rio populated by topless Swedish supermodels. Vice President Cheney has also been implicated in this horrifying plot in exchange for Elle Mcpherson and an off-shore oil platform that is reportedly within jet-pack distance of New Orleans.



    ...Developing.




    Been watching Fox News?
  • Reply 5 of 82
    der kopfder kopf Posts: 2,275member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    Been watching Fox News?



    I guess ena was to busy *leaving threads*.
  • Reply 6 of 82
    mrmistermrmister Posts: 1,095member
    Could there have been depleted uranium weapons in Afghanistan--possible, and a big black eye for the administration.



    Could it instead be some "mini-nuke"? Give me a fvcking break. That's just insane.
  • Reply 7 of 82
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,741member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    Been watching Fox News?



    Why Fox? His sounds as plausible as yours.
  • Reply 8 of 82
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    Been watching Fox News?



    More like Comedy Central
  • Reply 9 of 82
    der kopfder kopf Posts: 2,275member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Tulkas

    Why Fox? His sounds as plausible as yours.



    That is not true, Tulkas, and you know it. Nuclear weapons are, hard to peg correct numbers, but probably about 10e1000000 more plausible than aliens, especially when we're talking about a region spanning 500.000 km from the earth's core. (this covering the area at the dark side of the moon amply).
  • Reply 10 of 82
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    (I searched for an Afghanistan thread...none found....)

    This story published today in the BBC looks as if there is a strong possibility that some variety of mini-nuke(?) may have used in Afghanistan.



    The first of Bush's wars looks like it was sold on partial lies (namely to "get al qaida" and unseat the Taliban), when the more likely (and unsellable) reasons were to build that Caspian oil pipeline, install a puppet regime (Karzai) and use one of the most inaccessible and remote parts of the planet to field-test new controversial weapons on a human population that the Bush administration most probably regards as "expendable" (my emphasis).






    This is not same thing, but here is article," Awaiting the Real Toll" by Chalmers Johnson, who disscussed about DU which gave me an eye-opening experince.



    "..The first Iraq War produced four classes of casualties: killed in action; wounded in action; killed in accidents (including "friendly fire"); and injuries and illnesses that appeared only after the end of hostilities. During 1990 and 1991, some 696,778 individuals served in the Persian Gulf as elements of Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm. Of these 148 were killed in battle, 467 were wounded in action, and 145 were killed in accidents, producing a total of 760 casualties, quite a low number given the scale of the operations.



    However, as of May 2002, the Veterans Administration (VA) reported that an additional 8,306 soldiers had died and 159,705 were injured or ill as a result of service-connected "exposures" suffered during the war. Even more alarmingly, the VA revealed that 206,861 veterans, almost a third of General Schwarzkopf's entire army, had filed claims for medical care, compensation, and pension benefits based on injuries and illnesses caused by combat in 1991. After reviewing the cases, the agency has classified 168,011 applicants as "disabled veterans." In light of these deaths and disabilities, the casualty rate for the first Gulf War is actually a staggering 29.3%. .. "



    Here's the whole article. A very good, thought provoking read.



    (read on)





    Mike.
  • Reply 11 of 82
    enaena Posts: 667member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    Been watching Fox News?



    Oh no...........it's all true........I have my sources.



    What's more----you can't prove it's not true!



    The fleet is perched for a massive attack on earth---everything is in place. GWB is busily cashing in those Halliburton stock options, and the vice president is having his legs waxed---the situation COULD NOT be more grave.



    I would urge all readers of this thread to immediately freak out and start hoarding the necessities of life, as the next few years are going to make Night of the Creeps look like an episode of Three's Company.
  • Reply 12 of 82
    pyr3pyr3 Posts: 946member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ena

    Oh no...........it's all true........I have my sources.





    World Weekly News ?
  • Reply 13 of 82
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    What I don't understand is why some of you are skeptical when the administration was seriously considering using these weapons. You'd have to be an ignorant and 100% partisan moron to completely discredit this theory.
  • Reply 14 of 82
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Gee,

    I wonder how the Americans snuck all these nuclear bunker buster missiles past the world press, moved them under the very noses of the Pakistan Government / Military, loaded them up and dropped them without any of those anti-American reporters getting a whiff of the radiation leaks.....?



    Strange that not a single geiger counter has been offered up along with the actual sites of where....?



    Sounds more like another " pull the chain " conspiracy theory....
  • Reply 15 of 82
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by aquafire

    Gee,

    I wonder how the Americans snuck all these nuclear bunker buster missiles past the world press, moved them under the very noses of the Pakistan Government / Military, loaded them up and dropped them without any of those anti-American reporters getting a whiff of the radiation leaks.....?





    Snuck them past people? When did anyone ever have the right to inspect US ordnance? Come on. You can't be so naïve as to believe that the US military is all on the up and up and completely honest with the world community.



    Of course, this doesn't mean a thing about the veracity of this article, but let's at least operate in the realm of reality.
  • Reply 16 of 82
    enaena Posts: 667member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by aquafire

    Sounds more like another " pull the chain " conspiracy theory....





    ....more than that, I think there might be a teency weency seismic event associated with that sort of detonation. Hell, when they demolished the Kingdome (you just HAD to be there) it genertated a small "quaklet".
  • Reply 17 of 82
    drewpropsdrewprops Posts: 2,321member
    Nice.



    Just when her rep couldn't drop another notch she proves me wrong.





    I love that.
  • Reply 18 of 82
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    I hardly think it outside the realm of reality that Pakistan would request such inspections..After-all, there are many complex machinations going on behind the scenes that you and I are not privvy to.

    And even though the probability might seem low, even you cannot rule that scenario out.



    ( Or are you a one of those psychologists who dismisses alternate realities that dont fit your profilled definition of such ?



    Back on track, my point is questioning the use of such nuclear bunker busting missiles..They are very big... OK...Not exactly toothpicks..

    On the otherhand I deplore the use of all forms of uranium depleted / hardened conventional warfare shell casings, as used by the US army & I wouldn't doubt that the same casings are being used in "conventional" bunker buster bombs & missiles....



    Those are very real possibilities..the nuclear ones are too big in terms of radiation spread to go unnoticed...with the kickback of radioactive clouds emmenating from the detonation sites...being virtually impossible to hide..

    Such radiation would be quickly spread through the air & into the subterranean aquifers, eventually percolating back into rivers & streams that cover much of Afghanistan..

    Water radiation tests would help determine this..\
  • Reply 19 of 82
    enaena Posts: 667member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by aquafire

    On the otherhand I deplore the use of all forms of uranium depleted / hardened conventional warfare shell casings, as used by the US army & I wouldn't doubt that the same casings are being used in "conventional" bunker buster bombs & missiles....



    Those are very real possibilities..the nuclear ones are too big in terms of radiation spread to go unnoticed...with the kickback of radioactive clouds emmenating from the detonation sites...being virtually impossible to hide..

    Such radiation would be quickly spread through the air & into the subterranean aquifers, eventually percolating back into rivers & streams that cover much of Afghanistan..

    Water radiation tests would help determine this..\




    I think certain countries' spy satellites would be ALL OVER those kind of heat blooms, and quite frankly the radiation would be impossible to hide.



    Unless, of course, the aliens are in on it, then all bets are off.
  • Reply 20 of 82
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Mini-nukes are useful... to poop on!
Sign In or Register to comment.