anotherlife

Gold Member
Nov 17, 2012
6,456
377
130
Cross-Atlantic
Isis can operate so well because it has broad popular support within its geographical area in Syria. This support is probably just 51% of the population, but big enough to keep them going. As a result, they can keep up their guerilla warfare forever.

What weapons can we use to eradicate them, if this was the assignment? Not just stop them but eradicate them. Putting ethics and such aside, this would be a genocideous turf grabbing technique from the point of view of that 51%. But let's forget that aspect for a minute. Would the US have a kind of weapon that could take that 51% of that population out in one quick step, if it was legal? Let's discount nukes.

What weapons would the US have for this? Or what weapons would it need to research and develop? The science of guerilla eradication techniques in high population support may not even be solved yet in the 20th-21st century.
 
By the way, I found too that bio, chemo weapons, and even nukes have only a very low % kill rate within the targeted populations. Saddam Hussein's famous Tikrit(?) attack was only 1% and Nagasaki was only like 10 %. So, does the US have a technological disadvantage against the meat shield, like Germany did in ww2?
 
Really?! "if this was the assignment..." USA thinks it's their duty to step in every conflict of civilized world if they have interests there! We "helped" searching weapons in Iraq. Judging by casualties there, it wasn't successful.
But now Iraq is our friend! Recently read an article about Iraqi Forces trained by the Americans breaching Mosul nowadays. Is this interference was helpful? I seriously doubt that...
 
Really?! "if this was the assignment..." USA thinks it's their duty to step in every conflict of civilized world if they have interests there! We "helped" searching weapons in Iraq. Judging by casualties there, it wasn't successful.
But now Iraq is our friend! Recently read an article about Iraqi Forces trained by the Americans breaching Mosul nowadays. Is this interference was helpful? I seriously doubt that...
I think that may be a politically valid view, but this thread would like to discover weapon options instead of politics. Also what do you mean by helpful?
 
First I would doubt that any special weapons would be needed. Two things would be needed to do the job the would be the will and the Brutality needed to get the job done. There are at least two examples of guerrillas supported by a sympathetic population that were defeated, the Tamil Tigers and FARC.

Any special weapon would also need the attributes listed above for use, because they would inevitably lead to charges of genocide.

There is some conjecture that with enough money and the right research that a genetic bullet linked to a biological weapon could be developed...though that supposition is controversial.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top