Why America or UK not drop A-bomb or better H-Bomb on isis

Post Reply New Topic

It seems that the ISIS does not follow any rules of war.


I wonder why America does not dump the atomic bomb on ISIS.

Two atomic bombs tiny enough to show the reportedly undefeated Japanese "Empire" where their place

Are you by chance 12? There's a reason we haven't used an A-bomb since. We're not barbarians; we shouldn't even be in the Middle East.

Well? those cockroaches do need exterminating but then we risk killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.

politics aside, it's not feasible to drop a large bomb on ISIS. They aren't a country, they're using guerilla tactics. Just this week, they put on Iraqi army uniforms in order to sneak into an Iraqi army base.

If you dropped the bomb, it would kill the people trying to fight ISIS.

So, your thought process is that a 30 year campaign of bombing the Middle East can only be solved by... bigger bombs?

Moreover, ISIS aren't building cities, they're roving around in groups, taking hostages and using human shields. There is no "ISIS Hiroshima" to target. (Or what Alex said)

His age is clearly listed to the left of his post and it isn't 12. not sure if you were trying to make a personal attack but keep in mind those aren't permitted

The US will not use nuclear weapons in any conflict until enemy tanks are rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue, and maybe not even then. No President wants to go down in history as the second man to use the Bomb.

Among the MANY reasons that that is not a good idea is that ISIS is a stateless actor. Its not a nation with cities that can targeted. Japan is a state- and has cities, and industrial areas, like Hiroshima that can be bombed or nuked.

There is nothing to bomb on a nuclear scale. ISIS is like a motorcycle gang thats gained control of a few thousand square miles of Syria and Iraq.

AND- there would be vast collateral damage- with virtual no NONcollateral damage (wouldnt even damage what you're trying to damage). You would wipe out the very innocent people already being murdered by ISIS, in fact you would be out doing ISIS at its own crimes, but you probably wouldnt even scath ISIS itsself. The few thousand ISIS fighters would stay in their bunkers, and the million civilians out in the open would die.

So its hard to image what the point of doing that would be.

Last edited by naturalplastic on 13 Feb 2015, 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Not necessarily. It depends on the bomb. The radiation cone of a neutron bomb could easily be regulated by detonation height. Mosul would be a perfect target for such a weapon.

We would piss off the rest of the Middle East with radiation and have to deal with them as well.
You would probably kill far less ISIS members with 500kt nuke than thousands of conventional weapon strikes equaling 10th of that explosive yield. We are dealing with a bunch of roaming fighters over nothing but desert.

Absolutely!
We should commit nuclear genocide of the city of Mosul because killing a million civilians without hurting ISIS is better than killing a million civilians and failing to hurt ISIS.

If you look at who is involved in the fighting in Iraq and Syria you'll find Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, Assad the dictator, Kurdish terrorists, and a bunch of other groups dominated by stark raving madmen. Keeping all sides equally armed and dangerous is arguably a good thing. Let them kill each other. Only intervene to level the playing field, and to prevent the killing of women and children.

WMD's need to be used appropriately and tailor made against your enemy. A super-bomb won't do nothing to that vermin other than give them an incentive to get their own and use them.

Instead, deploy something far more powerful and far more damaging to ISIS than a nuke:

I wonder what it is about educated women that scares them so much.

Regardless of whether it's feasible or not, such a use would set a precedent. I don't think any state wants to chance making nukes an acceptable response. The one time it has happened in history was unique. Any use now would be to risk starting a trend.

This^