Trump: abandon no first use of nukes against ISIS

Post Reply New Topic

Read all about it!


I have mixed feelings about the use of nukes against ISIS. Honestly it isn't the best idea because of the danger of collateral damage and of course, radioactive fallout.

However, there *is* a type of nuclear weapon that actually could be used against ISIS soldiers on the battlefield when they are in areas away from large civilian centers: The neutron bomb, or W88 warhead(American version). It is a small, low yield hydrogen bomb that is very clean in terms of producing no fallout nor large blast but emits and intense burst of gamma rays when detonated above its target that will instantly kill living organisms within a 1+ mile radius.


Another option is to develop small, low yield tactical nukes(maximum yield of 20 kilotons, Hiroshima was ~18 kilotons) that have neutron absorbing tampers which prevent radioactive fallout from forming but still create a large blast that will be enough to vaporize an entire fighting battalion, a motorized convoy, or a military base.

Two thoughts:

1. There is no actual safe level of radioactive fallout *except* over truly large numbers in aggregate. In other words, its devastating to a small number of people (those who were unlucky enough to ingest/inhale/incorporate a particle or twelve into their body) but "harmless" to the rest.

2. There are no ISIS-only cities for us to bomb. This isn't WWII. When we kill ISIS with drones, bombs and missiles, we almost always also take out a fair number of innocent civilians, too.

It is untrue that a "neutron bomb" or ERW produces no fallout.

Use of nuclear weapons of any kind against ISIS would make the United States a global pariah and in the minds of many legitimize any kind of response, such as a chemical, biological or nuclear attack on a US city.

The idea is not just profoundly unethical but also tactically unsound.
Overwhelming force is not an effective answer to most problems.

I think there is a failure to put things into perspective. This is an ideological war.

However bad the terrorist treat is in Europe or the US, it still isn't bad enough to justify using nuclear arms.

People get killed falling over putting their trousers on. The chances of being in a terrorist attack are quite small for most people.

ISIS territory is shrinking. There might be another group after ISIS, but that is an ideological problem, nuclear arms aren't going to help that. Conventional arms struggle to contain this problem.

We need to deal with the narcissism and victim mentality at the root of terrorism.

I get it, but I don't get it.

Fission causes radiation. Fusion does not.

And neutron bombs are apparently "baby H bombs" and not "baby A bombs"(as I used to think). That is: they are fusion bombs and not fission bombs.

But you need a fission bomb to detonate a fusion bomb (an H bomb has to contain a small A bomb to work).

So how can a neutron bomb NOT produce toxic radiation? It has to be triggered by a small A bomb doesnt it?

Just noticed something else...

Nukes will destroy them, sure, but at what cost? The bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were devestating as they were, but modern nukes are much worse. In order to use a weapon that causes so much collateral damage, one would have to be a complete madman. That's not the only thing to consider either; it's very well possible that other countries with nukes may use this as an excuse to retailiate against the US. Mutually Assured Destruction, anyone?

I think about 50 MOABs should do the trick. They are non radioactive produce a large enough explosion and are environmentally friendly! Ohhhh Green Peace should be proud!