POLL: Should we nuke ISIS?

Publicly being against the US is a far cry from Europe Launching nuclear missiles against us.

there is no way that any country could launch a nuclear strike against the US and NOT have the US retaliate. And this is even based on if the missiles can reach our shores and not be taken out by any top secret defense.

Other country's know this. It takes aprox 30 min for an ICBM to reach Russia that is plenty of time to launch a counter nuclear strike. The ONLY scenario where a country will launch nuclear missiles at the US is if we launched at them first. The US nuking ISIS is not going to be justification for the world to start a nuclear world war. We are talking end of man kind here. The US alone has enough nuclear power to wipe out all life on this earth several times over..

 

NATO would dissolve. The US would be seen as a rogue nation. We would lose every ally we have. It would make us FAR less safe.

 

Yes but only Rakka and why is this in the polling forum when there is no poll?

 

Amazing that anyone would consider this a good idea. Not surprised... just laughing.

 

I wouldn't use nukes but I'd give some careful consideration to wheeling out some of those old guillotines in Belgium in France. They might need some oiling up, but nobody knows how to wield a guillotine better than the Belgians and French. Make for quite a spectacle, don't you think?

 

No, that's your solution. You are the one urging nuking ISIS.

 

Also, imo, some one in pakistan would arrange to tranfer a bomb outside of gov control

 

I'm absolutely NOT urging the use of nukes. just arguing that although it would be morally reprehensible. It would be very effective

 

The emerging consensus is that nuking ISIS would be bad, since Israel is so near by.

As a result, the focus must now go towards The Iranian Terrorists (TIT). Iran's neighbors are only Pakistan and Iraq.

 

Nuking Chicago would also be very effective in getting rid of gun violence there.

 

NATO is funded by the US so who cares about NATO. But yes it would cause a global political nightmare at the least

 

The Japanese had vowed to fight to the last man.

Apart from that, why do you consider my post a joke?

 

Effective in killing Americans beyond ISIS' wildest dreams.

 

If we really want to bomb anyone out of existence, why are nukes necessary? Consider that the USA firebombed 67 Japanese cities -- this is not Hiroshima or Nagasaki, both nuked -- including Nagoya, Tokyo and Osaka (the equivalents of Los Angeles, New York, and Cleveland), and destroyed roughly half of those 67 cities. Without nukes.

Surely we can make a firebomb as well today as we could in the 1940's.

 

Really, care to post your imaginary statistics.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, but I will take the figures from the German authorities, not some imaginary conjectures.

- - - Updated - - -

That is proof enough.

 

Hell ya!

Once you get them all into one place in an uninhabited remote valley let me know, I'll push the button myself in case anybody is squeamish.

 

How so? ISIS wildest dreams is to be eradicated by nuclear bombs?

 

It's just the uninformed automatically associate Islam with only the Middle East.

 

Putting aside the minor, inconsequential fact of mass civillian deaths and (*)(*)(*)(*)

1) radiation does not stay confined to one place, especially after nuking an area that large. It spreads to surrounding countries and eventually gets in the oceans.
2) radical Islam does not start and end with ISIS, and ISIS is not confined in one area.
3) 1.57 billion Muslims will not take it very well if you start nuking their fellow Muslim civillians.
4) Meet Russia and China. They've got nukes, and interests in the area you just annihilated.

Very rarely is an idea so bad it could potentially cause the outbreak of WWIII.

 

I reckon nuke them with love. According to UNESCO, ISIS is the most peaceful group in the world, so why kill the peaceful?

 

They'll revive themselves in other conflict zones...Libya and Egypt's Sinai are swarming with ISIS affiliates right now.