Bombspotting
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: Bombspotting

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    4,424

    Bombspotting

    Bombspotting/Bombstopping.

    What's it all about?

    Kleine Brogel.

    Kleine Brogel is a Belgian air force base which covers an area of 1100 acres in the North East of Belgium. It is the original and only remaining base used by the United States in Belgium.

    Kleine Brogel is also currently the home of the Tactical Fighterbomber Wing (10 W TAC), the section of the Belgian Air force under NATO command. This wing is responsible and trained for flying with the F-16. The squadron takes part in regular exercises for the loading and use of nuclear weapons.

    Nuclear weapons?

    Lots of questions have been asked in Belgian Parliament concerning the presence of nuclear weapons at the base. The standard answer, dictated by the NATO, used to be to 'neither confirm or deny' the presence of nuclear weapons. The actual presence of nuclear weapons used to be a public secret... untill Belgian Air Force's Chief of Staff confirmed in an unguarded moment that Belgium DOES have a role in NATO's nuclear tasks.
    Belgium's Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt, has confirmed the actual presence to other members of parliament several times. The public however had to put up with the 'standard answer'...

    Released American and NATO-documents show that Kleine Brogel is being maintained to hold nuclear weapons. At Kleine Brogel, 11 WS3 bunkers (Weapons Storage & Security System) are installed under the floor of hardened aircraft shelters, with each bunker housing up to two nuclear weapons.

    The weapons are of the B61-type, a modern free-fall bomb ranging up to 170 kiloton (14 times the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb).

    110 American soldiers (52nd Munitions Support Squadron) are responsible for the weapons. The pilots trained to fly those weapons are Belgian.

    Our demands

    Belgium is a democracy. Therefore, ALL information should be public.
    Every possibility to have a substantive parliamentary debate concerning the Belgian involvement in NATO nuclear strategy is refused.

    On July 8, 1996 the International Court of Justice (The Hague, The Netherlands) declared that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is generally contrary to international humanitarian law. The ICJ is the highest legal body in the world.

    Bombspotting

    Non-violent action. Period.
    Trespassing the base DOES involve breaking Belgian Law. The Bombspotters feel strengthened by International law though, which orders every civilian to intervene where crimes against humanity are being prepared.

    Belgian government, police and army had been warned a long time before about the bombspotting, about the 'civil disobedience'.

    October 5, 2002: Bombspotting day!

    The Bombspotters' goal was to trespass the base to draw attention. Nothing more. No criminal motives were involved.
    Police knew that, and treated them almost as civilians.
    Army and police arrested about 500 out of about 1500 manifestants. Among them were higher members of the government... The arrestants were released by the end of the manifestation.

    And no, I wasn't one of them: I preferred not to trespass the base. My reasoning: breaking the law to protest against a violation of the law is just as bad as that violation of the law itself.

    The result

    We made the news again... Our government can not keep on denying what's going on...


    Note: when I speak of 'we', by no means do I intend to speak in the name of the people organizing the Bombspotting (For Mother Earth, Forum voor Vredesactie, Bomspotting vzw).
    The facts and numbers mentioned in this post come from original NATO-information, and from the forementioned organizations.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    276
    Dun agree with you about the non trespassing but cudos to you. Get involved and try to change what you think is wrong!
    Dear Santa, I liked the mp3 player I got but next christmas I want a SA-7 surface to air missile

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    4,786
    first id like to say, as long as any power not on my side has them, and they do, i want my country to have the biggest, badest and meanest bombs in the world.

    What purpose does nato serve? an organization that was formed in answer to a expansionist, but now defunct soviet union. The first official act of nato was bombing serbs. Not a compleately ignoble act, but an act that did not require an organization of the magnitude of nato.

    if there were a common enemy, would we not band together. And if we would not, would nato make a differance?

    the united states spends more on funding nato than most other nations spend for the defense of their own country. we have many thousand of troops stationed in nato nations. nations that are capable of defending themselves for any of todays real threats.

    there's not a doubt in my mind, that those bombs are there because people in gov both here and there, are profiting from it, and the people of both nations are paying for it.

    The bombs arn't the real issue here, its nato. Its a white elephant, i say lets get rid of it.
    Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    502
    Tedob1.

    first id like to say, as long as any power not on my side has them, and they do, i want my country to have the biggest, badest and meanest bombs in the world.
    So, you agree with killing millions of people due to possible nuclear attacks? You agree to the fact that the natural enviremont of such a place of impact will never be restored? You agree to the fact that the radiation poisoning will kill, desease, and destroy more people's lives for a range of 200years? And all that just because YOUR country has to have the biggest bombs?

    Damn, i'm not meaning to be rude, but that's just ****ing egoistic.

    Later PPl
    Bleh.

  5. #5
    Kwiep
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    924
    Why do we got nuclear weapons anyway... The only real use they have is threatening eachother for wich the bombs itself don't really have to exist. Maybe another good use for it is to blast away some evil aliens or destroy a comet that comes to close to earth, but we don't need so much (or there have to be very many many bad ugly aliens).
    If we're going to use those bombs on ourselfs we probably get some kind of 'wargames' situation, how futuristic it is in a movie, because of a million chains of revenge. Those nuclear bomb are pretty much outdated now... They're 50 years old, almost everybody could make them (every country or state). erm... well hope that made some sence
    Neel
    Double Dutch

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    236
    So, you agree with killing millions of people due to possible nuclear attacks? You agree to the fact that the natural enviremont of such a place of impact will never be restored? You agree to the fact that the radiation poisoning will kill, desease, and destroy more people's lives for a range of 200years? And all that just because YOUR country has to have the biggest bombs?
    The short quick answer is ... Yes... People seem to forget that the Russians still have more than enough Nuclear weapons to destroy the entire world about 40-50 times over... Do you think that they wouldn't threaten to use them in order to get what they want from the world if the US and others didn't have them also... The reason the US and Nato still have Nukes is simple... There is still a viable nuclear threat to Western Europe and the US...
    \"Nuts!\"- Commanding General 101st Airborne Division Dec 1944 in answer to German request that he surrender Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge
    Life has a certian flavor for those who have fought and risked it all that the sheltered and protected can never experience.- John Stewart Mill
    White, Hetrosexual, Christian male. I own guns, hunt, eat meat, burn wood, and my wife wears fur... Any questions?

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    4,786
    No i don’t, but if we didn't have them they would be used on us. And you too by the way. I do believe that if it were not for the superior nuclear strength of the US, they would have been used already.
    If you believe any differently, that is your choice. But those thoughts will not change the nature of man. China will use them. Iraq will use them; they will be used by certain South East Asian nations. Russia would have used them if they believed that for one second that the same would not have happened to them. I believe that without our nuclear arsenal millions would have died already and the conditions that you described would exist right now in central Europe. There is a growing unrest in the world, to put it mildly, and I do not believe that this is a good time to be thinking about disarming.

    For someone not meaning to be rude, it comes very naturally to you. What, in your opinion, would have happened with the soviet union if the US didn’t have the biggest bombs?
    Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    352
    50 facts about US Nuclear Weapons here, and their cost.
    \"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.\" -- Dom Helder Camara

  9. #9
    Purveyor of Lather Syini666's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    553
    Mahakaal > whats the most disturbing about that fact list is that of the massive amount of weapons the us has possessed, 11 have went missing and were never recoverd. You would think that weapons of mass destruction would be guarded much better than that. I wonder how many russian nukes have went missing and were never found?
    You're not your post count, You're not your avatar or sig, You're not how fast your internet connection is, You are not your processor, hard drive, or graphics card. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of AO
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

  10. #10
    Originally posted here by Tedob1
    China will use them. Iraq will use them; they will be used by certain South East Asian nations. Russia would have used them if they believed that for one second that the same would not have happened to them.

    That's quite a big call to make without any proof whatsoever. It's all just hearsay...


    The FACT is that the US is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons as an act of war.. 130 000 dead from the blast and an additional 70 000 from radiation related illness...


    Sorry for getting a little off topic.....


    Taken from here...


    179 megatons: Estimated total yield released by United States nuclear weapons test explosions.

    427.9 megatons: Estimated total yield of all nuclear weapons test explosions.

    114: Number of U.S. underground nuclear tests that released radioactive material into the atmosphere.

    10,000: Additional cases of thyroid cancer that will occur as a result of fallout from 90 U.S. nuclear tests.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •