Should nuclear weapons be used against ISIS?

[Sallow]

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.

Bush's unilateral attack against Iraq gave justification for the invasions of Georgia and the Ukraine as well as the harsh crackdown in Tibet. It gave notice that such actions were "acceptable".

That's what would happen by using nukes. It would become "acceptable".

 

[Delta4Embassy]

And if you detonate it on the ground the effects are very localized. Lotta the devastation from nukes depends on how high you detonate it. Right on the ground, much of the effect is bouncing off the earth and up into the air. Could contain the blast to about a mile radius that way. More fallout, but much less overall destruction. But you still make a really good point.

 

[Wildman]

i am for using anything it takes to wipe out every ******* muslime on Earth.

hell yes!! i'll even laff my ass off about it. .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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.

Bush's unilateral attack against Iraq gave justification for the invasions of Georgia and the Ukraine as well as the harsh crackdown in Tibet. It gave notice that such actions were "acceptable".

That's what would happen by using nukes. It would become "acceptable".

That's a concern but not a big one. Get China and Russia to sign off on our using them first naturally. Don't want them calling the Republican President at 2am and shouting "what the **** was that?"

But these terrorist nutjobs need to be remidned they're ******* with nuclear powers. And unlike the usual terror groups, these fools have territory perfect for a 'reminder' of who they're messing with.

 

[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.

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.

I see you have bought into "dilution is the solution."

Here is a source you might relate to.

Nuclear weapons - the problems

 

[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.

I see you have bought into "dilution is the solution."

Here is a source you might relate to.

Nuclear weapons - the problems

Greenpeace can suck my dick.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Decades of activism and they haven't achieved any of their primary goals.

 

[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.

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.

Again, I think you are mixing radiation with contamination.

Here is an article on the subject and a snippet from the article. Again, contamination from an air burst nuclear weapon, they are all air burst, spreads across the world. A nuclear melt down of a power station tends to stay localized, if we are very lucky. Chernobyl was only found out by the world after the radioactive cloud moved over, I believe, Sweden.

What's the damage?

In the contaminated regions around Chernobyl, for example, there has been a sharp increase in thyroid cancer, severe mental retardation due to prenatal exposure, and genetic damage in human, animal and plant life.

Increases in the rates of radiation-related cancers have been documented in military personnel involved in nuclear tests, and also within communities downwind of test sites in Australia, Kazakhstan, the US, and the Micronesian Pacific Islands. It is estimated that due to atmospheric testing alone, 430,000 fatal human cancers had been produced by the year 2000, and that eventually the total will be 2.4 million.

 

[Freewill]

Decades of activism and they haven't achieved any of their primary goals.

Well I can agree that they have not achieve the goal of educating everyone on the shear folly of using a nuclear weapon.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Yes, the radiation spreads around the world but not in a lethal or even worrisome sense. Detonated hundred of nukes in the atmosphere before banning that. Effects were minimal at worst.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Freewill]

Yes, the radiation spreads around the world but not in a lethal or even worrisome sense. Detonated hundred of nukes in the atmosphere before banning that. Effects were minimal at worst.

Not IMMEDIATELY lethal.

Here is an article that is very informative on the subject whether you agree with their conclusions or not. But what you are saying is like saying that smoking cigarettes is not lethal.

General overview of the effects of nuclear testing: CTBTO Preparatory Commission

An article featured in Volume 94 of American Scientist onFallout from Nuclear Weapons Tests and Cancer Risks states that a number of studies of biological samples (including bone, thyroid glands and other tissues) have provided increasing proof that specific radionuclides in fallout are implicated in fallout-related cancers.

It is difficult to assess the number of deaths that might be attributed to radiation exposure from nuclear testing. Some studies and evaluations, including an assessment by Arjun Makhijani on the health effects of nuclear weapon complexes, estimate that cancer fatalities due to the global radiation doses from the atmospheric nuclear testing programmes of the five nuclear-weapon States amount to hundreds of thousands. A 1991 study by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW)estimated that the radiation and radioactive materials from atmospheric testing taken in by people up until the year 2000 would cause 430,000 cancer deaths, some of which had already occurred by the time the results were published. The study predicted that roughly 2.4 million people could eventually die from cancer as a result of atmospheric testing.

 

[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.

 

[Freewill]

Thanks Nero, can you play "The Devil Went Down to Georgia?"

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Thanks Nero, can you play "The Devil Went Down to Georgia?"

I am not going to fiddle around with that........

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Why not just use a few thermobaric bombs and avoid the political fallout?

 

[JoeB131]

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.

so you really are a retard, then?

Hey, guy, another nuclear power has troops on the ground in theatre. I don't think they'd be really keen on us using nukes around their boys.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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.

so you really are a retard, then?

Hey, guy, another nuclear power has troops on the ground in theatre. I don't think they'd be really keen on us using nukes around their boys.

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

 

[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..