Amazon.com Widgets
  • Absolutely, in a heart beat

    We should use thermonuclear weapons, thousands of them, all reigning down not only on ISIS territory, but the entire Muslim world. Take down Mecca, Islam's beating heart. It won't eliminate them (Islam) completely, but it serves to create maximum psychological damage into the hearts of those medieval-thinking, uncivilized barbarians who don't know how to behave themselves. We are sending a message of who's boss, and that the Western civilization is superior to their backward way of living.

  • One and Done

    If you bomb a terrorist group then you never have to bomb them again. Also, if you bomb them then they will fear you and they will never try to defeat us or threaten us. Also, it is important to have nukes ready just incase a country tries to nuke us we are prepared. My motto on nuke is one and done!

  • Use nukes against ISIS

    YES! But it will have to be done with care; remember these are small TACTICAL nukes we are talking about. One tactical nuke could be used to blow off an uninhabited mountain top near an ISIS occupied town to block off an essential transport route, for example, with landslides into nearby valleys. Or an airburst high above ground level will knock out all communication with the EMP but cause few or no actual deaths. Once an actual nuke is used visibly in this way as the ultimate 'Shock' tactic, it will cause ISIS to panic and disintegrate within hours, as they will wake up to the fact that the US (Or Russia?) are prepared after all, to use their expensive but up until now, never-used atomic weapons and they will be thinking: Oh, s**t, the Coalition REALLY mean it, and continuing to fight under their black IS toilet-rag of a banner won't be worth another second of their time. The image of even a small nuclear explosion spread across the world's news networks will also mean that we won't have to worry about anyone even remotely trying to foist genocidal extremism anywhere in the world for evermore -as long as, that is, there is a Free and Democratic nation such as the US, Britain, France, or, hopefully in the future a once-again-democratic Russia who keeps themselves armed with a reserve of low-yield tactical nukes between 0.1 and 1 kiloton.

  • Big thumb up for tactical nukes.

    Against groups like ISIS, tactical nukes could be choice for massive bombardment what required destroying their groups. And i'm not speaking now about 100Kt A-bomb, but small tactical weapons, 1-2K should be enough. Saves money, time and most important lives of US troops when one aeroplane with rightly delivered package does it all. There is no need to send hundreds of pilots for unnecessary danger. Tactical nuke keeps damage to minimum so we don't see any "new Hiroshima".

  • Big thumb up for tactical nukes.

    Against groups like ISIS, tactical nukes could be choice for massive bombardment what required destroying their groups. And i'm not speaking now about 100Kt A-bomb, but small tactical weapons, 1-2K should be enough. Saves money, time and most important lives of US troops when one aeroplane with rightly delivered package does it all. There is no need to send hundreds of pilots for unnecessary danger. Tactical nuke keeps damage to minimum so we don't see any "new Hiroshima".

  • Like ending WW2 with Japan

    Why bother sending ground forces for these low life scum? This is the cleanest, quickest and most efficient way to end their reign of terror. We just need a President who has the balls to do it. Hopefully we will have one in 2017. The approach our current President has taken has been a complete failure.

  • We should thats not what they are expecting

    All the love in the world it not going to fix isis

    if you had a dog that bit all of your children what would you do

    I know what i would do

    many of these people were at one time refugees , this is how they repay us, bring there troubles to us, shame on them

  • What we are doing isn't working

    Let's not forget that if these attacks were against anyone but private citizens then ISIS would already be an after thought. So while we sit and watch how appalled our government's are over these attacks. Just realized that it's our children who will have to go on the ground and bleed for these morons... Mean while we have small ballistic Tactical Nukes that were designed for these very same extremist situations.... So if you're worried about some long term fallout of a region. Just remember that those same people will kill your children and call it a blessing... Let us fight back without losing anymore of our kids

  • Using large scale Nukes of the cold war era is a bad idea But we now have Tactical Nukes that can eliminate these coward's

    As long as regular everyday people are the target's of these vicious predators our government's are just going to pretend to be shocked and dismayed but if they really cared they would have used extreme force to really protect us and other's abroad... The use of small Tactical Nukes against a Nation that harbor's or condones these barbaric actions should be held accountable and anything less than small Tactical Nukes is what they should expect from here on out..
    .

  • Them or us!

    Them or us! Them or us! Them or us! Them or us! Them or us! Them or us! Them or us! Them or us! Them or us! Them or us! Them or us! Them or us! Them or us! Them or us! Them or us! Them or us! Them or us! Them or us! Them or us! Them or us! Them or us! Them or us! Them or us! Them or us! Them or us! Them or us!

  • NO, I hate nukes

    Nono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono nonono no

  • Never. Never. Ever.

    Using even a small tactical nuke will have consequences both geo-political and envoiremental, (with regards to the climate,) that we can not accurately foresee. It is also an ethical threshold that we do not want to cross, and it sends the message that this is an acceptable way of doing war. A better alternative is to send ground forces, and to help the opposing parties in the region arm themselves against IS. An escalation in force will most likely just lead to even more extremism from sympathisers in the future.

  • What we are doing isn't working

    Let's not forget that if these attacks were against anyone but private citizens then ISIS would already be an after thought. So while we sit and watch how appalled our government's are over these attacks. Just realized that it's our children who will have to go on the ground and bleed for these morons... Mean while we have small ballistic Tactical Nukes that were designed for these very same extremist situations.... So if you're worried about some long term fallout of a region. Just remember that those same people will kill your children and call it a blessing... Let us fight back without losing anymore of our kids

  • ISIS is a by-product of imperialist war.

    If it weren't for the US war against Iraq, and the long running ambitions of Western imperialism (i.E., the military protection of western capitalist interests) in the region, violent anti-western groups like ISIS would likely not exist. Besides, why should anyone expect the US to sincerely combat Mujahideen groups like ISIS or Nusra when in the same breath US policy makers are arming and training so-called "moderate" - moderates in name only - elements of the Free Syrian Army knowing full well that virtually all of the US supplied weapons end up in the hands of homicidal Wahabbi influenced Mujahideen groups like Daesh. Today, the various Mujahideen's serve Western capitalism in a similar fashion as did the ultra-nationalists who formed the core of first historical fascism and later the paramilitary anti-communist groups that terrorized progressives and non- aligned governments in Latin America (operation condor, the Contras) and throughout the world (Gladio), that is, is they provide an extra-legal and covert means for Western elites to fulfill their imperialist ambitions with less risk backlash, both globally and domestically, that more overt methods leave in their wake. Also, like fascism, Wahabbi influenced Jihadism, likewise because of it's cruel and destructive extremism, also serves western imperialism by inflaming public sentiment on the homefront. The naive, the ignorant , or the simply bigoted, in the West can then be counted upon to call for our duplicitous policy makers to do something! - something drastic, to put a stop to the menace, the very menace that these same policy makers have had a major hand in fostering in the first place. So yes, only an ignorant or malicious person could think that military action by the USA can in the long run have anything but a detrimental effect on the region. What Americans can do to curb the suffering of those displaced by war is to show true courage and humanity and pressure their government to open their borders to refugees fleeing these US government backed imperialist wars. Of course, this is something that the loudest voices calling for the USA to "nuke" Syria are unlikely to agree to, cowards that they are.

  • Not a Chance

    First, the UN is against it for a great reason, other countries would fear the US would take too much power and would start building nuclear missiles themselves, causing a second nuclear standoff. Second, it would kill many more citizens than terrorists, and no nuclear missile would put a scratch on any terrorist group by itself.

  • No, nuclear weapons should never be an option.

    Despite our society's fear of terrorist attacks, nuclear weapons should never be a realistic response to terrorists. Drone attacks have been used recently to kill terrorists. These pin-point bombings have still resulted in the killing of innocent civilians. Imagine the number of innocent lives that would be lost, if nuclear weapons were used against terrorists.

  • Nuclear bombs are too severe.

    Nuclear bombs should be banned for the massive and long lasting destruction that have on a population and area. Nuclear bombs spread radiation out over a large area and do not only affect the current population, but raises the risk of birth defects and cancer in future generations. These unborn children do not deserve to suffer for the crimes of terrorists.

  • No, terrorists cannot be pinpointed accurately.

    As opposed to a country, terrorists are a group of individuals dispersed amongst the population. Therefore, it makes it almost impossible to only target terrorists with any large scale attack. This means that any nuclear attack will kill innocent individuals and turn the US into somewhat of a terrorist as well.

  • This is a horrible idea

    The U.S. made a major mistake in World War II by using a second nuclear bomb on Nagasaki. Hiroshima was incredibly necessary, as it prevented a full-scale invasion of Japan that would have taken several years, but it also did something far more serious: It showed the devastating effects of a nuclear bomb. There hasn't been another bomb dropped since Nagasaki for that very reason. Hiroshima is still radioactive and highly dangerous because of it. That is exactly why going nuclear against terrorists is an incredibly stupid idea. These are terrorists we're talking about. They're guerrilla fighters that have several key bases. Why don't we just drop regular-grade bombs on those bases once we find them? Going nuclear would completely destroy the base, as well as everything within 25 miles of it. That would kill thousands of innocent people, which, in turn, would get the entire Middle East to hate America even more than they already do. We'd have to nuke the entire Middle East at that rate, and if we did that, our own allies would turn against us. Nothing good can come out of going nuclear against a small group of bad guys. Good people will be killed too, and for what? To kill a group of 50 bad guys that an army squadron could take out with minimal casualties? Whatever happened to just bombing where the bad guys are? We've killed enough innocents in the process. Killing thousands more is out of the question.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.