Obliterating Islamic State (ISIS)

If the use of a nuclear weapon against Japan was morally and militarily justified (it saved Allied lives,and,less important, Japanese lives) why would the use of a nuclear weapon against ISIS not be justified morally and militarily ? It would also save Allied lives,and,less important, Muslim lives .

I don't think it wise to view peoples lives as more or lesser important. This sounds like Nazi ideology.

Certainly the US wasn't as concerned about collateral damage in WW2 (again different situation altogether) and the fact that is that Imperil Japan murdered 10 million innocents. However it did end the war.

Again one cannot compare WW2 with the current ME situations. If an atomic bomb is used in the ME it will open up a can of worms. It will galvanize the radicals against the say US or whoever else that uses the A-bomb.
 
If the use of a nuclear weapon against Japan was morally and militarily justified (it saved Allied lives,and,less important, Japanese lives) why would the use of a nuclear weapon against ISIS not be justified morally and militarily ? It would also save Allied lives,and,less important, Muslim lives .

When you are asking that question.......the light is on, but nobody is home.
 
I am not sure why this would be a surpirse to anyone, I would suggest that ISIS have infiltrated a lot of places outside the middle east as well because oddly enough (and I suspect this will confuse Lljadw) not all of ISIS's supporters fit the mold of your average cartoon Islamic terrorist some of them are quite African and European looking as well.

I would also suggest that large numbers of them will not manage to achieve anything but it would be incredibly naive to believe some of them wont succeed, this is just the world we live in these days.
 
If the use of a nuclear weapon against Japan was morally and militarily justified (it saved Allied lives,and,less important, Japanese lives) why would the use of a nuclear weapon against ISIS not be justified morally and militarily ? It would also save Allied lives,and,less important, Muslim lives .

If it was that simple, it would already have happened.

A nuclear strike has wide spread collateral damage consequences. As ISIS is spread throughout a handful of countries, there will a great loss of civilian and innocent lives.
 
ISIS has a HQ: destroy it .You will see the results .Why is the HQ not destroyed,why is ISIS handled with kid gloves (50 years ago,kid gloves were not used to deal with NV) ?

It is very simple : because the Liberal antiIsrael,antisemite gang is ruling in the US .

It is very possible to use a small nuclear weapon on the ISIS HQ with less collateral damage than most air attacks in WWII .
 
I don't think it wise to view peoples lives as more or lesser important. This sounds like Nazi ideology.

Certainly the US wasn't as concerned about collateral damage in WW2 (again different situation altogether) and the fact that is that Imperil Japan murdered 10 million innocents. However it did end the war.

Again one cannot compare WW2 with the current ME situations. If an atomic bomb is used in the ME it will open up a can of worms. It will galvanize the radicals against the say US or whoever else that uses the A-bomb.

In WWII the lives of Japanese and German civilians were considered rightly as less important than the lives of allied civilians .

The use of TWO A Bombs against Japan did not galvanize the radical Japanese against the US,thus why should the use of ONE small A Bomb against the ISIS HQ galvanize the radical ISIS members (they all are radical) against the US ?
 
In WWII the lives of Japanese and German civilians were considered rightly as less important than the lives of allied civilians .

The use of TWO A Bombs against Japan did not galvanize the radical Japanese against the US,thus why should the use of ONE small A Bomb against the ISIS HQ galvanize the radical ISIS members (they all are radical) against the US ?

For one thing the radical Japanese were already galvanized against the US that is why they fought so hard. The A-bombs scared the Emperor into thinking if we continued to drop more A-bombs the damage would be unacceptable. Some radical Japanese tried to stop him from surrendering.

The Radicals in the ME would love an opportunity for a general Jihad against the US. The droping of an A-bomb would provide just such an opportunity. Much like the attack on Pearl Harbor galvanized the US against the Japanese in WW2, so the dropping of an atomic bomb would do to the present day Muslim world against the US. You forget many Muslim nations are allies or nonaligned they are not all terrorist regimes or organizations.

Also the US has extensive conventional bombing capability. If needed there is nothing we couldn’t wipeout without using convention weapons like bunker busters, etc. Why use an atomic weapon which would have such negative ramifications?
 
Last edited:
For one thing the radical Japanese were already galvanized against the US that is why they fought so hard. The A-bombs scared the Emperor into thinking if we continued to drop more A-bombs the damage would be unacceptable. Some radical Japanese tried to stop him from surrendering.

The Radicals in the ME would love an opportunity for a general Jihad against the US. The droping of an A-bomb would provide just such an opportunity. Much like the attack on Pearl Harbor galvanized the US against the Japanese in WW2, so the dropping of an atomic bomb would do to the present day Muslim world against the US. You forget many Muslim nations are allies or nonaligned they are not all terrorist regimes or organizations.

JOC is right! There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world right now, out of which the combined forces in total of Islamic State, al Qaeda, Taliban and Boko Haram makes up 0.003% of global Muslim population. Therefore the statement that Islam propagates terror thus it needs to be A-bombed is flawed because if Islam really bred terror, we’d all be dead now.
 
For one thing the radical Japanese were already galvanized against the US that is why they fought so hard. The A-bombs scared the Emperor into thinking if we continued to drop more A-bombs the damage would be unacceptable. Some radical Japanese tried to stop him from surrendering.

The Radicals in the ME would love an opportunity for a general Jihad against the US. The droping of an A-bomb would provide just such an opportunity. Much like the attack on Pearl Harbor galvanized the US against the Japanese in WW2, so the dropping of an atomic bomb would do to the present day Muslim world against the US. You forget many Muslim nations are allies or nonaligned they are not all terrorist regimes or organizations.

Also the US has extensive conventional bombing capability. If needed there is nothing we couldn’t wipeout without using convention weapons like bunker busters, etc. Why use an atomic weapon which would have such negative ramifications?


There is nothing we couln't wipeout without using convention weapons as bunker busters ?

Oh yes? Why is ISIS than not wipedout? Why was the NVA not wipedout ?
 
JOC is right! There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world right now, out of which the combined forces in total of Islamic State, al Qaeda, Taliban and Boko Haram makes up 0.003% of global Muslim population. Therefore the statement that Islam propagates terror thus it needs to be A-bombed is flawed because if Islam really bred terror, we’d all be dead now.

Noone said that the Islam needed to be A-bombed ;the question is : why is ISIS handled with kid gloves ?

Why are the US using more violence against Assad who is fighting against ISIS than against ISIS ?

If ISIS and the other criminals are only making up only 0.003 % of the global Muslim population,why do ISIS and the others still exist ?

There are 2 obvious reasons which everyone knows, but they are taboo.
 
For one thing the radical Japanese were already galvanized against the US that is why they fought so hard. The A-bombs scared the Emperor into thinking if we continued to drop more A-bombs the damage would be unacceptable. Some radical Japanese tried to stop him from surrendering.

The Radicals in the ME would love an opportunity for a general Jihad against the US. The droping of an A-bomb would provide just such an opportunity. Much like the attack on Pearl Harbor galvanized the US against the Japanese in WW2, so the dropping of an atomic bomb would do to the present day Muslim world against the US. You forget many Muslim nations are allies or nonaligned they are not all terrorist regimes or organizations.

Also the US has extensive conventional bombing capability. If needed there is nothing we couldn’t wipeout without using convention weapons like bunker busters, etc. Why use an atomic weapon which would have such negative ramifications?

Can you provide a list of the many US muslim allies ? :roll:
 
There is nothing we couln't wipeout without using convention weapons as bunker busters ?

Oh yes? Why is ISIS than not wipedout? Why was the NVA not wipedout ?


The US is only dropping small amounts of ordinance on ISIS. This is nothing like the full scale attack that brought Saddam to his knees in the 1st Gulf war. The US has chosen to only participate in a small way under the Obama administration in the air war against ISIS.

The NV were brought to their knees by the B-52's in the early 1970's in a way that was never accomplished during nearly a decade of ground war. They were practically ready to surrender. Nixon called off the attacks, politics. I'm not saying the attacks on Hanoi and other NV cities was justified however it brought results, with high civilian cost.
 
Now one sees the results of the pampering policy : 150 people murdered in Paris : there is only one answer possible : REVENGE
 
For starters those who are participating in the air campaign: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Bahrain and Jordan

Are SA,the UAE,Qatar and Bahrein not supporting ISIS ?


Whatever: The US (the West) have no longer any allies in the ME (Egypt is a possible exception :given the insults of Obama to the present regime of Egypt,the influence of the US in Egypt is over)
 
Now one sees the results of the pampering policy : 150 people murdered in Paris : there is only one answer possible : REVENGE

Numerous Americans are independently fighting ISIS. Like 13 suggested why not join their ranks? You can personally but yourself in a position to dole out revenge against ISIS.
 
Now one sees the results of the pampering policy : 150 people murdered in Paris : there is only one answer possible : REVENGE

Clearly you are right on this issue so once we are done nuking all Muslims based on the actions of less than 0.003% of them how long do you suggest we wait before nuking Ireland in order to get rid of the last vestiges of the IRA although they were predominantly Catholic so there goes France, Italy, Spain, Philippines, much of South America and I have just been informed 57% (well above the 0.003% threshold) of Belgium so clearly Belgians are terrorists.

We may need more nukes in order to wipe out any place harboring "potential" terrorists but at least we will be equal opportunities haters and not racist bigots.

Oh yeah and we will also be extinct but safe.
 
Back
Top