Should nuclear weapons be used against ISIS?

[Delta4Embassy]

Low-yield 'tactical' nuclear weapons (~5 kiloton range) should be used against ISIS-controlled positions.

What say you?

 

[JoeB131]

Low-yield 'tactical' nuclear weapons (~5 kiloton range) should be used against ISIS-controlled positions.

What say you?

I'd say you are fucking retarded.

 

[Freewill]

NO

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Low-yield 'tactical' nuclear weapons (~5 kiloton range) should be used against ISIS-controlled positions.

What say you?

I'd say you are fucking retarded.

Was in the Navy and know more than a little bit about nuclear weapons. Can tell you that even after decades of megaton nuclear testing a big radioactive cloud didn't encircle the earth wiping out all life, nor did we screw anything up in any lasting way.

Tactical nuclear weapons aren't 'The Day After' or 'Threads' type weapons. They're really bad to everything within about a mile radius but not much beyond that. Plus, a high-altitude airburst for the EMP would disable their vehicles, self-propelled artillery, and computers all at once. They'd basicly being legging it from then on since even their cars wouldn't work any more. Could do just the EMP strike and still render them a non-threat.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If your goal is to create several million new radicalized Muslims, then the answer would be yes.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

If your goal is to create several million new radicalized Muslims, then the answer would be yes.

Don't think that would happen. Only people killed being terrorists, not supply side Muslims.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do you have a nuke small enough to effectively deal with the homegrown terrorists?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If your goal is to create several million new radicalized Muslims, then the answer would be yes.

Don't think that would happen. Only people killed being terrorists, not supply side Muslims.

There's a satire forum for satirical threads, and there's a rubber room for retarded threads. I suggest you try some self-analysis and then request the Mods move this to one or the other.

 

[Freewill]

If your goal is to create several million new radicalized Muslims, then the answer would be yes.

Why would that do it more so then drone strikes?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Effects radii for 5 kiloton surface burst (smallest to largest): ▼

Fireball radius: 490 ft (0.03 mi²)
Maximum size of the nuclear fireball; relevance to lived effects depends on height of detonation. If it touches the ground, the amount of radioactive fallout is significantly increased.

Air blast radius (20 psi): 1,220 ft (0.17 mi²)
At 20 psi overpressure, heavily built concrete buildings are severely damaged or demolished; fatalities approach 100%.

Air blast radius (5 psi): 2,570 ft (0.74 mi²)
At 5 psi overpressure, most residential buildings collapse, injuries are universal, fatalities are widespread.

Thermal radiation radius (3rd degree burns): 0.64 mi (1.3 mi²)
Third degree burns extend throughout the layers of skin, and are often painless because they destroy the pain nerves. They can cause severe scarring or disablement, and can require amputation. 100% probability for 3rd degree burns at this yield is 8 cal/cm2.

Radiation radius (500 rem): 0.69 mi (1.49 mi²)
500 rem radiation dose; without medical treatment, there can be expected between 50% and 90% mortality from acute effects alone. Dying takes between several hours and several weeks.

Estimated fatalities: 14,850
Estimated injuries: 27,300

Simulation of a 5kt detonation over Raqqa, Syria.
NUKEMAP

 

[TNHarley]

I was about to say no but you make a good case..

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Effects aren't that extensive. Could avoid the fatalities altogether and just do an airburst EMP style det. Have em all walking to do their terror

 

[waltky]

Granny says get some o' dem neutron bombs from Israel...

... an' shove `em down ISIS's throat.

 

[Freewill]

the stigma attached to using nuclear weapons would make the US even more hated in the world, by everyone.

Which is interesting considering the condemnation that is usually laid down by the left over the use of the nuclear bombs in Japan.

Saying that there was little nuclear fall out from testing is really not true, it is just how much you are willing to live with. If a person wished to make a radioactive counter these days they have to get steel made before 1945 or else it contains nuclear isotopes as a result of nuclear testing. Contamination can be found in a lot of the of the shellfish and other ocean life.

 

[Sallow]

Using Nuclear weapons on the battlefield will insure a nuclear Holocaust.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

So-called neutron bombs are hellish extra-radioactive weapons. Even I'd wanna minimize radiation, not maximise it. Whole reason nukes don't get used is the radiation. If they had no radiation they get used all the time.

 

[Freewill]

So-called neutron bombs are hellish extra-radioactive weapons. Even I'd wanna minimize radiation, not maximise it. Whole reason nukes don't get used is the radiation. If they had no radiation they get used all the time.

I think you mean contamination, not radiation. Nuclear weapons should be banned because of the radiation deaths they cause and contamination.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Low-yield 'tactical' nuclear weapons (~5 kiloton range) should be used against ISIS-controlled positions.

What say you?

Definitely not. Very bad idea.

 

[Freewill]

Using Nuclear weapons on the battlefield will insure a nuclear Holocaust.

I am not positive this is true. Using them against countries without nuclear weapons would not result in a response from those who do. Not sure why it would.

Never the less I can't think of one good reason to use them. A languishing death from radiation sickness is little different, in my opinion, then using chemical agents or bio warfare.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

So-called neutron bombs are hellish extra-radioactive weapons. Even I'd wanna minimize radiation, not maximise it. Whole reason nukes don't get used is the radiation. If they had no radiation they get used all the time.

I think you mean contamination, not radiation. Nuclear weapons should be banned because of the radiation deaths they cause and contamination.

Nuclear weapon radiation is short-lived. Compared to say a reactor's meltdown which results in dead zones for centuries. Can visit nuclear test sites and walk around. Wouldn't propose moving there like, but it's not a no-go zone for the rest of time. And if you airburst them fallout's minimal. The fallout occurs when the detonation sucks up earth and irradiates it. Then it falls back to earth, or gets carried with wind patterns where ever. Airburst high enough eliminates that aspect.