Are we getting close to WW III?

Post Reply New Topic

And then do they get shot?

We hanged German and Japanese war criminals, so you know what they say: what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Obviously I am not saying that ISIS fighters can withstand any weapon.
You do know a metaphor is dont you? A mouse cannot withstand a direct hit by a wrecking ball. But wrecking balls are not the weapon of choice of pest exterminators.


Instead of playing dumb why not just explain your pov? If you were in the Pentagon how exactly would you deploy a nuke against ISIS in a way that would not defeat the US itsself and would somehow hurt ISIS? Theyre not even a proper nation state. It would be like trying to nuke the Mafia.




The average US nuke is 400 kilotons (about 20 plus Hiroshimas). It would incinderate 20 square miles.

Sounds awesome. But how exactly do you envision the USA deploying such a weapon against ISIS?


What if you take one and just dropped it somewhere in ISIS controlled territory in Syria, or Iraq? What would you accomplish? The warhead would incinerate 20 square miles. So that would be either 20 square miles of empty desert being incinerated, or a populated area of a hundred thousand innocent civilians being incinerated. You might get a handful of ISIS fighters (like a wrecking ball might squash a couple mice )along with the holocaust. But that doesnt go very far toward defeating ISIS.

You could pick some forward postion of ISIS on the frontlines of battle where they have a couple hundred fighters dug in. But again it would be overkill- you would kill more civilians than ISIS fighters, and kill more civilians than ISIS itsself is killing. And the whole point is to stop ISIS from killing civilians.


And ISIS is not like the USSR, or World War II Germany or Japan, who had to support their war efforts with their own industry. So there are no factories to destroy. No steel mills, or ball bearing plants to take out. So there are no targets for your nukes in the first place. You would just kill alot of innocent civilians, and just cause the surviving civilian population to back ISIS against us. So what use would a nuke be? My point is what I said already- that it would be like using a wrecking ball against mice in your house- you would destroy what you're trying to protect while doing next to no damage to what you're trying to protect it from.

The next war will not be one of those costumed Europe Rule Book wars.

There will be those who support us, slaves, and the dead.

The last people who faced this kind of war and won, Vlad the Impailer, Tamerlane. Jingus Khan did not wait for war.

Kill everything, leave no stone upon another.

Considering the number that have fled Mosul, the rest are ISIS supporters. We have some sub atomics that can level cities.

The British killed more at Dresden than we did at Hiroshima.

B-52s carpet bombing around the clock, no other city would fall to ISIS. Reduce it to rubble, keep bombing the rubble.

Assad is doing this, the parts of cities that support terrorists are being demolished.

The front line drives all forward, till the supporters are in Jordan or Turkey. They have nothing to go back to, and would not be welcome. Jordan and Turkey supported the terrorists, so they can keep them.

Then send in ground troops, absolute rulers, gather the slaves, kill any that resist, and put them to work building something great, with irrigated huge gardens, forts, and make halfbreed children the overseers. All language except English is forbidden, on pain of death.

In two generations they will be a captive population, and serve willingly.

Demand and enforce public health, education, and sports. Deal with corruption by flaying the guilty alive in the public marketplace.

Subject them to fair and speedy laws, sound money of copper and silver, and defend those who gain property. Provide for the old, sick, injured, orphans, and protect them. Abolish all religion that takes more space than in your heart.

To do otherwise leads to refighting the same war every generation.

Put them on the path to health, prosperity, education, and living in a fair and just system.

The second generation will want nothing else.

Is that the point? I don't think the U.S. government is much concerned about the civilian population. They want to stop ISIS from gaining power and eventually attacking America.



It would take more than one, of course, and the targets would have to be carefully chosen. Cities they control, bases, etc. Follow-up bombings wherever they popped their heads up after that.

The difference between this and the wrecking ball metaphor is that this isn't our house. Our house is America.

There is too much nonsense in this post to enumerate and respond to.

You've just admitted that nukes could only be used against the very targets that do not exist: "cities they control" (there are none- even if there were why murder the captives of ISIS when you're trying to kill the ISIS itsself ?), and they have no sizable bases. So you've just conceded my point -that nukes would be useless.

Whether its our house or not is irrelevent. If you're worried about the mice in your nieghbors house infesting your house - the wrecking ball wont kill the mice in your nieghbors house either. In fact it will probably guarantee the mice would move to your house.

Why you gotta be like that?