Should nuclear weapons be used against ISIS?

[airplanemechanic]

Greenpeace can suck my dick.

And from your history of making sex offender threads about child porn, would be the first adult to do so.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

It is ok eventually ISIS will get their hands on some nukes, via Iran and they will test your theory out on some western country if not the US..

So soon you will see about all your theories..

That'll never happen. Problem with nukes is the origin is discernable. If your country gives terrorists a nuke and they use it, you're gonna be the one nuked in retaliation. Why it hasn't happened already. DPRK HAS nukes. Haven't 'accidentally lost' one yet. Pakistan too. They bth understand the reality and consequence.

No such thing as an anonymous nuclear detonation.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Greenpeace can suck my dick.

And from your history of making sex offender threads about child porn, would be the first adult to do so.

Ya like every FBI agent, prosecutor, and cop on the beat. We all write about that.

 

[Kosh]

It is ok eventually ISIS will get their hands on some nukes, via Iran and they will test your theory out on some western country if not the US..

So soon you will see about all your theories..

That'll never happen. Problem with nukes is the origin is discernable. If your country gives terrorists a nuke and they use it, you're gonna be the one nuked in retaliation. Why it hasn't happened already. DPRK HAS nukes. Haven't 'accidentally lost' one yet. Pakistan too. They bth understand the reality and consequence.

No such thing as an anonymous nuclear detonation.

Official: Enough Material Missing From Russia to Build a Nuke

But then again the world would have to have a true leader at the helm and since now Putin is that world leader, I guess they will not suffer so much!

Iran would not suffer either as Obama nad his failed foreign policies would do what they are doing now, nothing!

 

[Delta4Embassy]

It is ok eventually ISIS will get their hands on some nukes, via Iran and they will test your theory out on some western country if not the US..

So soon you will see about all your theories..

That'll never happen. Problem with nukes is the origin is discernable. If your country gives terrorists a nuke and they use it, you're gonna be the one nuked in retaliation. Why it hasn't happened already. DPRK HAS nukes. Haven't 'accidentally lost' one yet. Pakistan too. They bth understand the reality and consequence.

No such thing as an anonymous nuclear detonation.

Official: Enough Material Missing From Russia to Build a Nuke

But then again the world would have to have a true leader at the helm and since now Putin is that world leader, I guess they will not suffer so much!

Iran would not suffer either as Obama nad his failed foreign policies would do what they are doing now, nothing!

Missing fissile material is most likely a paperwork error. If it were actual we'd have heard about it as something went foom.

 

[Care4all]

No, no, no!!!

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

What say you?

Oh, and the last time this happened loads of kids ended up getting cancer. But seeing as the right doesn't give a fuck about anyone in the Middle East, why not just use the big powerful ones?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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

What say you?

Oh, and the last time this happened loads of kids ended up getting cancer. But seeing as the right doesn't give a fuck about anyone in the Middle East, why not just use the big powerful ones?

No one in Raqqa is an innocent at this point. The innocents left and are now the refugees. Only ones there at this point are ISIS and their sympathizers.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

What say you?

Oh, and the last time this happened loads of kids ended up getting cancer. But seeing as the right doesn't give a fuck about anyone in the Middle East, why not just use the big powerful ones?

No one in Raqqa is an innocent at this point. The innocents left and are now the refugees. Only ones there at this point are ISIS and their sympathizers.

So, a 3 year old child is a guilty murderer then?

I'm sure there are a few of those.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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

What say you?

Oh, and the last time this happened loads of kids ended up getting cancer. But seeing as the right doesn't give a fuck about anyone in the Middle East, why not just use the big powerful ones?

No one in Raqqa is an innocent at this point. The innocents left and are now the refugees. Only ones there at this point are ISIS and their sympathizers.

So, a 3 year old child is a guilty murderer then?

I'm sure there are a few of those.

Killed between 300,000 and 1,000,000 women and children via sanctions in just Iraq AFTER the war. Wanna hold fire because a few in Raqqa will be killed? Your sudden morality and ethics is curious.

 

[sealybobo]

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

What say you?

Last night on frontline they were showing how Isis is taking over Afghanistan. And it seems the difference between Al Qaeda the Taliban and Isis is that Isis wants to force Islam on the entire world. They feel this is their duty. My question is is that okay? Is it ok for them to believe and feel that way? I know it's not okay for them to do anything about it but just having that belief is that enough reason to kill them? Because if that is their belief then eventually they're going to come to us. And they are brainwashing their children as young as three years old they're learning to hold guns and they're learning about caliphates and jihad. So I don't want to hear about feeling sorry for young children and women refugees when they might actually be the sleeper cells themselves

 

[Igrok_]

All the area would be poisoned. What the point of doing this?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"The Air Force’s B-61 warhead is small enough to fit in the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and its yield can be “dialed down” to as low as an 0.3 kiloton yield..."

No Longer Unthinkable: Should US Ready For ‘Limited’ Nuclear War?

Unfortunately, any weapon below 5 kilotons is in violation of a 'no tactical nuclear weapons' treaty the US signed. Russia though has these low-yield nukes. If we wont handle this problem, we should give our ascent for their doing so.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

What say you?

Oh, and the last time this happened loads of kids ended up getting cancer. But seeing as the right doesn't give a fuck about anyone in the Middle East, why not just use the big powerful ones?

No one in Raqqa is an innocent at this point. The innocents left and are now the refugees. Only ones there at this point are ISIS and their sympathizers.

So, a 3 year old child is a guilty murderer then?

I'm sure there are a few of those.

Killed between 300,000 and 1,000,000 women and children via sanctions in just Iraq AFTER the war. Wanna hold fire because a few in Raqqa will be killed? Your sudden morality and ethics is curious.

A lot of the problem with sanctions were that the Iraqi govt was taking away aid that was going to the people. It wasn't just the west that was killing people, Saddam was too.

"a few Raqqa" will be killed?

Seems you just want to go in gung ho.

 

[frigidweirdo]

All the area would be poisoned. What the point of doing this?

Boys wanted to feel powerful.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

All the area would be poisoned. What the point of doing this?

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.

If world powers continue to shrink from total warfare like the US is doing with a weak President who makes a 'dove' look hawkish, then we're only encouraging escalating terror attacks. If we don't use nuclear weapons after 9/11 with 3,000 dead, when do we? If we dont' use nuclear weapons when terrorists control entire cities, when do we?

There's never been a more improtant time to demonstrate the cost of terrorism. I'd rather take out a few neighborhoods in Raqqa now, then have to start vaporizing entire cities later. But that's the scenario ahead if we do nothing now. This isn't going to be afight between the US and other nuclear countries, Russia, China, and others will be united in this effort. I can't imagine anything short of an alien invasion that can unite the planet against a common foe. If we ignore this opportunity to make friends out of enemies and establish global control in the hands of major world powers against terrorists, thereis no future for any of us. Terrorists will win and run through our cities without fear of massive retaliation.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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

What say you?

Oh, and the last time this happened loads of kids ended up getting cancer. But seeing as the right doesn't give a fuck about anyone in the Middle East, why not just use the big powerful ones?

No one in Raqqa is an innocent at this point. The innocents left and are now the refugees. Only ones there at this point are ISIS and their sympathizers.

So, a 3 year old child is a guilty murderer then?

I'm sure there are a few of those.

Killed between 300,000 and 1,000,000 women and children via sanctions in just Iraq AFTER the war. Wanna hold fire because a few in Raqqa will be killed? Your sudden morality and ethics is curious.

A lot of the problem with sanctions were that the Iraqi govt was taking away aid that was going to the people. It wasn't just the west that was killing people, Saddam was too.

"a few Raqqa" will be killed?

Seems you just want to go in gung ho.

The 5 kiloton detonation I modeled has just 15k fatalities. Russia is gonna wrack up a lot more than that if they use FAE and daisy cutters like they have in the past.

 

[sealybobo]

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

What say you?

Oh, and the last time this happened loads of kids ended up getting cancer. But seeing as the right doesn't give a fuck about anyone in the Middle East, why not just use the big powerful ones?

No one in Raqqa is an innocent at this point. The innocents left and are now the refugees. Only ones there at this point are ISIS and their sympathizers.

So, a 3 year old child is a guilty murderer then?

I'm sure there are a few of those.

If you watched front line last night you would have learned they're taught from age 3 to hate us and become suicide bombers.

 

[Igrok_]

All the area would be poisoned. What the point of doing this?

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.

If world powers continue to shrink from total warfare like the US is doing with a weak President who makes a 'dove' look hawkish, then we're only encouraging escalating terror attacks. If we don't use nuclear weapons after 9/11 with 3,000 dead, when do we? If we dont' use nuclear weapons when terrorists control entire cities, when do we?

There's never been a more improtant time to demonstrate the cost of terrorism. I'd rather take out a few neighborhoods in Raqqa now, then have to start vaporizing entire cities later. But that's the scenario ahead if we do nothing now. This isn't going to be afight between the US and other nuclear countries, Russia, China, and others will be united in this effort. I can't imagine anything short of an alien invasion that can unite the planet against a common foe. If we ignore this opportunity to make friends out of enemies and establish global control in the hands of major world powers against terrorists, thereis no future for any of us. Terrorists will win and run through our cities without fear of massive retaliation.

Terrorists don't afraid of being killed, so i doubt if the new means of killing them would have an effect on the situation. Moreover they seek for death to go to their muslim "heaven".

 

[Delta4Embassy]

All the area would be poisoned. What the point of doing this?

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.

If world powers continue to shrink from total warfare like the US is doing with a weak President who makes a 'dove' look hawkish, then we're only encouraging escalating terror attacks. If we don't use nuclear weapons after 9/11 with 3,000 dead, when do we? If we dont' use nuclear weapons when terrorists control entire cities, when do we?

There's never been a more improtant time to demonstrate the cost of terrorism. I'd rather take out a few neighborhoods in Raqqa now, then have to start vaporizing entire cities later. But that's the scenario ahead if we do nothing now. This isn't going to be afight between the US and other nuclear countries, Russia, China, and others will be united in this effort. I can't imagine anything short of an alien invasion that can unite the planet against a common foe. If we ignore this opportunity to make friends out of enemies and establish global control in the hands of major world powers against terrorists, thereis no future for any of us. Terrorists will win and run through our cities without fear of massive retaliation.

Terrorists don't afraid of being killed, so i doubt if the new means of killing them would have an effect on the situation. Moreover they seek for death to go to their muslim "heaven".

True, but when terrorists walk openly somewhere, other people are more likely to provide intelligence if they're worried about being attacked and killed along with the terrorists.