Should nuclear weapons be used against ISIS?

[JoeB131]

Ya, that hadn't occured to me. The whole 'get China and Russia to sign off first' demonstrates I don't consider such things.

so you really are a retard, then/

Why would Russia sign off. (I don't think the Chinese care) They have a wonderful opportunity to get themselves a nice warm weather port in the Mediterranean. Why would they care?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Ya, that hadn't occured to me. The whole 'get China and Russia to sign off first' demonstrates I don't consider such things.

so you really are a retard, then/

Why would Russia sign off. (I don't think the Chinese care) They have a wonderful opportunity to get themselves a nice warm weather port in the Mediterranean. Why would they care?

If all you have is petty insults, all I have is short replies.

 

[JoeB131]

Terrorists need to be reminded about the costs of attacking nuclear countries. A mushroom cloud rising above Raqqa makes this point for the whole world. Even if the effect is relatively small, a mushroom cloud's a mushroom cloud. Their idea of terror pales compared to our's.

that's just kind of retarded. You think these people who've we killed hundreds of thousands of in the last 25 years are suddenly going to be impressed because you've killed some more?

If killing people got us any closer to peace, we'd be there by now.

 

[JoeB131]

If all you have is petty insults, all I have is short replies.

Don't worry, the Short Bus will be by to pick you up.... shortly.

 

[Wildman]

Oh, and the last time this happened loads of kids ended up getting cancer.

if they are muslime kids.., all the better.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Get a bigger dose sitting in front of your computer screen all day that a nuclear detonation thousands of miles away.

That is an idiotic argument used often, that is background radiation, radioactivity from nuclear testing ADDS to the background radiation.

Get more rads flying coast to coast than from all the nuclear testing ever conducted. Insteado f trying to justify being weak with generations-old scare tactics about the boogeyman of radiation, spend a few minutes learning about it. Especially the plethora of other ways we get exposure to it. Adds up. If humans lived twice as long all the background and technological sources would be killing us. The nuclear testing is not a contributor.

 

[Wildman]

Don't worry, the Short Bus will be by to pick you up.... shortly.

are you asking for company? remember.., "one is the loneliest number"

 

[Freewill]

Get a bigger dose sitting in front of your computer screen all day that a nuclear detonation thousands of miles away.

That is an idiotic argument used often, that is background radiation, radioactivity from nuclear testing ADDS to the background radiation.

Get more rads flying coast to coast than from all the nuclear testing ever conducted. Insteado f trying to justify being weak with generations-old scare tactics about the boogeyman of radiation, spend a few minutes learning about it. Especially the plethora of other ways we get exposure to it. Adds up. If humans lived twice as long all the background and technological sources would be killing us. The nuclear testing is not a contributor.

You have been provided the information, ignore at your/our peril.

 

[Igrok_]

 

[whitehall]

Is this a freaking joke? American ground Troops can't even call in an artillery or air strike when the enemy is known for pushing innocent civilians in the way. Troops almost have to call the fat asses in the Pentagon for permission before they fire a shot and somebody thinks we should use freaking nukes? The world is upside down.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Is this a freaking joke? American ground Troops can't even call in an artillery or air strike when the enemy is known for pushing innocent civilians in the way. Troops almost have to call the fat asses in the Pentagon for permission before they fire a shot and somebody thinks we should use freaking nukes? The world is upside down.

We're not the only ones with nukes. Is the US is too limp wristed to do it, sign off on the Russians using them. Course then they get all rights to territory and treasure instead of us. But the point in war is to kill the enemy. Not subdue the enemy for a little while then have to go back and do it all over again.

 

[Syriusly]

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

What say you?

Why exactly do you hate the citizens of Syria and Iraq and the Kurds so much?

 

[Kondor3]

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

What say you?

Battlefield Tactical Nukes? Like they tested in the 1950s? Do we even have these in our arsenal nowadays? Sounds messy. Bad PR. Too much paperwork.

No.

Maybe we should just start manufacturing and using thermobaric (fuel-air) bombs again?

Lots of them.

They pack a huge punch, they melt-down shit, and there's no radiation, afterwards...

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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

What say you?

Battlefield Tactical Nukes? Like they tested in the 1950s? Do we even have these in our arsenal nowadays?

Signed a treaty agreeing not to develop ones below 5 kilotons. Smallest fixed yield is 20 kilotons, a man-portable artillery shell. But 'dial-a-yield' versions are 3-50 kilotons.

Other countries like Pakistan and think India and others have sub-5 kt tactical nukes. So-called 'suitcase' nukes.

 

[Katzndogz]

Let Putin decide.

 

[Igrok_]

Is there a weapon to wash off the near-sea territory by making artificial big wave? I have heard something from one of politician...