What if president trump nukes ISIS? Certainly ISIS can't

>>29428932
You're fucking retarded. Please step on a landmine.

>>29428949

No landmines nearby. Sorry.

Hell I'll go ask /pol/, they might respond.

>>29428932
That's pretty dumb, but you are right in that no one would nuke you back. As long as you were only nuking ISIS, Iran, Syria and the Russians would be cool with it, they all fucking hate ISIS. Maybe some "moderate rebels" would get mad, but you can just nuke those faggots too.

>>29428932
Nuking ISIS would violate two of the three principles of collateral damage: Military necessity and proportionality.

It would make Trump and everyone involved in carrying out the order war criminals on a scale not seen since the Holocaust.

Nobody would nuke the US in return, but it would sour relations with every ally the US has. It would draw down massive sanctions, disrupt US trade with the rest of the world, and drive many allies and potential allies into the arms of America's competitors and enemies.

>>29428932
>What if president trump nukes ISIS? Certainly ISIS can't respond in turn.
It's a stretch, but they might. The Saudis have stated they have an understanding with Pakistan and could acquire nuclear weapons if they so needed. Now, this is generally understood to have more to do with deterring a possible threat from Iran rather than the West, but nuking the ISIS heartland in the Sunni triangle may just piss off the Saudis enough to buy that nuke from the Pakis and hand it over to ISIS terrorists. Should that happen, you very well could have a nuke going off in DC or NYC.

File: IMG_5276.jpg (192KB, 600x798px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 600x798px

>>29428932

This thread is b8 as fuck, but aside from the many other problems presented by using a nuclear weapon against ISIS, you run into the problem that their forces are scattered amongst vast stretches of land, in various sized groups, most of which are indistinguishable from the local populations unless they're actually striking. Nuking the shit out of ISIS would result in nuking the shit out of the local population too, resulting in far more deaths of civilians than ISIS fighters, not only that, but you'd irradiate a much, much larger area, resulting in:

- An exponential increase in refugees fleeing the area
- Stoking the fire of hatred towards the US/western world way worse than the Afghanistan/Iraq wars did, both within the countries effected and across pretty much any country sympathetic to those attacked, which basically begs for whatever new group emerges to replace ISIS but with a way more legitimate reason for existence than ISIS
- Inciting WORLD WIDE hatred prompting potential individual actors from literally ANY country to seek retribution in any way they see fit, and likely the majority of the populations of pretty much every country on Earth hating you for doing so

>and shut up about nuclear winter already

>>29428932
>What if president trump nukes ISIS?

You mean besides create more terrorists than any president in U.S. history?

File: image.jpg (201KB, 1021x1005px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1021x1005px

>>29428932
1st. They live in houses made of stone topped with lead roofs.
They're pretty immune to most nukes below 1 mgt, and we only have a few of those.

2nd. Russia would seize the opportunity to strike America since we would have left ourselves open.

3- I doubt a nuke would cause them to surrender.

4. Turkey would be hit too, and they would launch the 20 they have on Russia, who would launch everything they have on America.

>>29431150
Turkey: "We're under attack! Quickly, launch nukes somewhere, anywhere"

Russia: "WTF, Turkey?! US, I bet you behind this, gonna launch now!"

>>29428932
Nuclear warfare is strategic warfare.
You can not wage strategic warfare on someone who lacks strategic targets.

File: funding.jpg (83KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 400x400px

>>29430044
>you very well could have a nuke going off in DC or NYC.

File: PBall America broke Japan.png (98KB, 1092x2188px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1092x2188px

>>29431040
Totally man, just look at all those terrorist Japs we radicalized by illegally interning their people and nuking their homeland.

Oh wait... that's right, there aren't any.

File: Beirut 1) a legitimate act of revenge. 78% 2) terrorism killing innocents. 22% Saudi professor of communication.jpg (25KB, 600x431px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 600x431px

>>29428932

>Even if Iran had nukes, they couldn't deliver them to the US.

Why would Shiite Iran want to help a radical Sunni Islamist group that has stated their intention to kill as many Shiites as possible?

>>29428932
ISIS isnt a city

>>29428932
Let's argue from a purely practical point of view without brining any moral arguments into play.
Let's play hypotheticals here and pretend you're a 20-somthing Muslim man living in America or Europe or really anywhere, it's not that important.

You kind of have some vague anti-western feelings but don't really ever act on them or voice them, ultimately despite the fact that you kind of disagree with the Western Powers supporting Israel and meddling in the middle east, you don't really feel *that* strongly about it and it's not high on your list of priorities.
You turn on the news one day and hear that America has dropped a Nuclear Warhead on a city of 600'000 people.

Do you think this would make that Hypothetical person *more* or *less* sympathetic to Jihadism?

Assuming a major motivation of meddling in the middle east is to prevent terrorist attacks on Western Soil, do you think this move would be *productive* or *counter-productive*?

File: GBU-43:B Massive Ordnance Air Blast.jpg (20KB, 275x206px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 275x206px

>>29428932
Absolutely no one will retaliate on behalf if ISIS.

The real problem with using Nukes on the battlefield is the desensitizing effect the very use of them will have. If we start dropping them just to get the job done, we'll be legitimizing thier use by other nations. Especially shit-tier nuclear powers like India and Pakistan. They want a nuclear dirka-dirka so bad their precum is radioactive.

There should be no ambiguity about what using nukes means. No one should be thinking that they can use a nuke, and maybe no one will retaliate because hey. They U.S. is using them now, after all. **And heaven forbid some Russian Spetznaz or diplomats happen to be in the blast zone. That's an international incident we do not want.**

We designed and built those fantastically big fuel-air bombs just so we could get tactical nuke effects without using nukes.

>>29428949
Nuclear winter really is a concern. Most of the cause will be ash clouds from continent-scale wildfires.

>>29433238
I don't think that guy actually exists. Or at least not as a meaningful demographic. Islam is not an ambiguous religious ideology that can be moderate. On some level every Muslim that actually accepts his faith believes in being a terrorist, regardless of our provocations or appeasement attempts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_world_in_Islam#Dar_al-Harab

But if he does exist, the way to deal with that problem is straightforward. You actually care? Deport all these people who don't look like us, have an alien

>>29433759
>Deport all these people who don't look like us, have an alien ethical system, and a reliogn which commands them to kill us.


Honestly, what do we get out of all these fucking Muslims in our countries besides kebab shops? Exotic entrees you can pick up during the lunch hour are not worth the violence and stress they create.

>>29433789
In case you didn't notice it's a little too late to debate logistics on that front.
We shouldn't have been in the Middle East in the first place, the best defense against that mistake was keeping them in the Middle East but we killed the people who kept them there, and now Europe has spent money to import them. It's too late to have an opinion on this shit.
But involvement has clearly failed.
I hate /pol/tards but Europe's only hope is to somehow deport them all before they go full retard, which inevitably means these "innocent migrants" will go full retard.

There is no good scenario for nuclear weaponry in the ME.
And if Trump is the one who carpet bombs or uses nukes there, the Vietnam era protests will look easy compared to what will happen if Trump somehow miraculously wins the presidency.

As others have said (thank god, i was worried there would be less sane responses)
the further use of Nukes opens wide pandoras box, and it will mean that, one day, someone will say 'in retaliation for the bombing of XXXX i detonated the smuggled Nuke/Dirty bomb that went of this morning in Washington/London/etc/etc'

If a terrorist gets hold of one and uses it first, you can expect the condemnation will be extreme, and a manhunt that will make osama's game of hide and seek look silly.

A country that uses one, for pretty much any reason, will result in that country being screwed for many years. economically at the least.

Even America would be screwed if every other country said 'we won't deal with you in any way' for a few years.

IF it's any other country.. well yeah, economic suicide.

Unusually i can't think of a reason that the world community would be ok with the first use of nukes.. anyone have any thoughts?

>>29430044
>Should that happen, you very well could have a nuke going off in DC or NYC.
are you fucking serious

i'd genuinely like to see those shitskins try to nuke the capital of a nation with one of the best air defenses on the globe

>>29433941
they wouldn't have access to the sort of infrastructure you'd need to launch a fucking ICBM, you dumbass.
They'd bring it in on a shipping container, most likely, or smuggle it in via Mexico and drive the fucker there in the back of a van.

>>29429644
>sanctions on the largest and certainly most important economy in the world
Good way to bring another global depression, except this one will last a lot longer

>>29433941
>>29433958
You are both retards

backpack nukes
god tiered suicide bombers

and it would be more likely a raghead would backpack nuke time square than US ever launching a missile

drink bleach you fucking losers

>>29433789
>What is freedom of religion?

>>29433999
Those numbers do not lie

>>29433999
>999
backpack nuking of times square confirmed

>>29433981
>>sanctions on the largest and certainly most important economy in the world


the European Union is a larger economy than the US; 18,240,000 million dollars per year compared to 17,420,000 million for the US.

>>29428932
>we eradicated isis
>we also killed millions of dindus

>>29434172
Semantics aside, 17.4 trillion USD GDP dropping off of the global economy overnight would be a huge fucking deal
also
>directly comparing an alliance of independent nations to a single country

>>29428932
>literally everything here is wrong
>even believes nuclear winter is real

Kek

Yeah, go to pol, they'll give you great answers alright. Stay willfully ignorant.

File: 1396740517147.jpg (597KB, 769x1038px) Image search: [Google]

597KB, 769x1038px

>>29433999
>nuke time square
And nothing of value was lost

>>29434188
>directly comparing an alliance of independent nations to a single country

Or directly comparing a union of 50 member-states with a union of 21 member-states....

>>29428932
Isis would be able to retaliate, there are obviously isis members in EU countries and possibly america, but they wouldnt really retaliate with equal force, it would just be a few more buildings blown up.

But on the other hand it would definitely make trump disliked by other countries because of civilians or whatever

>nuke Raqqa
>99 percent victims are civilians

yeah fuck that I'm not even gonna bite more into it, its a NIGHTMARE and even if Trump is dumb enough to consider it the military would never let him do it.

They thought about it during vietnam and every single everyone just waved their hands and said "Yeah no fuck that thats stupid as shit"

Basically if you're even considering this you're an absolute fucktard and thats not what nukes are for.

>>29428932
That's the dumbest idea ever.

What the US needs to do is either buy or replicate a squadron of bombers that are used by Saudi Arabia, then use those to firebomb major cities in Syria. They should also buy Russian bombers and perform the same in China and North Korea.

>>29432762
Because all Muslims are the same, it's why we should nuke the Vatican to piss off the Westboro Baptists

>>29428932
Iraq would dig out Saddams WMDs and launch them in return

Jokes aside it's absolutely ridiculous to literally nuke ISIS, if Trump has any credibility he was speaking hyperbolically.

some shitter hick herr derr lets nuke the isis
cause our troops cant eradicate insurgents in there own country thats been invaded

4th time now is it ?

ISIS is an force of occupation in most places. Nuking their them would be like nuking Paris to beat the Nazi's.

>>29434002
Islam isn't just a religion. It's a political system that is incompatible with ours. Adhering to Islam means constant, sustained violations of the civil rights of all non Muslims. If we're serious about making sure 9/11 never happens again, genocide is the only foolproof option.

>>29434283

It's exactly what nukes are for. The implied consequences are bad, but the actual consequences might be ok.

It didn't work out so bad after nuking the Japanese.

>>29434417
I bet you do well with the ladies

amirite

>>29434417
>Christianity isn't just a religion. It's a political system that is incompatible with modern 21st century rationalism. Adhering to Christianity means constant, sustained violations of the civil rights of all non Christians. If we're serious about making sure the Inquisition never happens again, genocide is the only foolproof option.

Does this sound pretty fucking stupid to you? That's now stupid your comment sounded to me, and I'm not a muslim...

>>29434426

Probably. He's definitely not wrong though. Dropping nukes is an extreme measure but it's definitely worth considering.

The US faced a more serious situation in world war 2 against a similar opponent in the Japanese. They were right to nuke the Japs then they are right to consider nuking ISIS now.

Should they do it? No ISIS isn't currently that much of a threat. They are nowhere near inflicting the kind of casualties that the Japanese Imperial Forces did on US troops and civilians. However there is a chance ISIS may be able to become a much larger threat in the near future if they are able to keep their current expansion into multiple countries through the use of jihadi agents.

In which case nuking them now would save us a lot more trouble in the future.

>>29434463
That was total war. This is discontent inherent in a larger population. People are always upset for some reason.

>>29431814
What about a doctorine of display of force/psyops value? I can see a reversal of the tactic of terror when the locals actually see or hear a high yeild nuke in the distance, even if we select a target that minimizes actual damage.

>>29432092
>Oh wait... that's right, there aren't any.
Difference being that now there are 2 million migrants deep inside Europe, people who have already shown themselves to, ahem, have different values from Europeans.

A nuclear strike against Tel Aviv would force the US and Israel to go maximum nuclear and Europe would sink into poo. The only alternative would then be genetic warfare on a scale that even resident edgelords would find a bit much.

>>29434228
No the United States is a single country. The states haven't acted as anything more than provinces for nearly 200 years.

>>29434504
>This is discontent inherent in a larger population.
It's really not. Pretending ISIS isn't really Islamic makes you look like a naive retard and gives cover to the so called Moderates who don't deserve it.

>>29434440
It's factually incorrect. Islam has no equivalent of "render unto Caesar", and specifies a form of pan-Islamic government. That form looks a hell of a lot like ISIS.

>>29434512
>What about a doctorine of display of force/psyops value?
Such a display comes with a sent-by-address. It is much smarter to do psyops based on local culture and fear that only would lash out inwards and not against the West.

We are talking about a region of the world where people believe that sex with a virgin will cure AIDS and that eating albinos will bring all sorts of health benefits. Strangely being albino is very much not a long term prospect in these countries. BBC World Service has a lot of rather crazy disturbing articles about these things and there are many things you can work on effectively here.

>>29434512
Against an enemy like that, that would have little effect.