m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23394233 This story is tied to a running theory of mine involving seismology and another game I love to play called " does one news story have anything to do with another." The US Marines conducting military exercises in Australia has had to drop two ordinances near the Great Barrier reef. The news story claims that this was due to a lack of fuel and the planes inability to land while performing military manuevers in the area; connected to the 12000 marine base build up in Australia for a future offensive sweep through Indonesia. The theory involving seismology is this; explosives can and will effect fault lines and possibly cause earthquakes for only a short distance away, New Zealand experienced a 6.5 earthquake. Now the state department says the bombs were inert (did not explode) but were they or did they not detonate??? Remember during the Iraq war that enormous earthquake that occurred in Iran killing tens of thousands. There was also an enormous earthquake in Pakistan around the time of the start of the war in Afghanistan. In both localities Bunker buster bombs and Daisy cutters were used. These types of bombs are immensely heavy, cut deep into the ground and carry enormous payloads. It is not unreasonable to think that such man made tremors could impact upon existing fault lines and possibly cause earthquakes. Is this considered an acceptable collateral consequence or something that could be used tactically and indirectly as a result of such ordinance? Pause for thought.
Posted on: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 15:30:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015