What do you think about the situation in Ramadi ?

What about using a tactical nuke ?

I would think that most of the "innocents" have left the city.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W33_%28nuclear_warhead%29

The yield is low, so damage would not extend much beyond the city.

I grew up in the 1950s comforting myself that, in the event of World War III, I would be incinerated by the fireball from the first hydrogen bomb to land on Norfolk Naval Base, as I was well within the 150 mile radius of the fireball.

The nuke genie is best left in the bottle.

In other news, there is no such thing as a "surgical strike." Once an attack is launched, all bets are off. The "surgical strike" is a fantasy of those who monger war. And who are the "innocents" depends on your point of view.

Pointless death is not ended by more pointless death.

Read The Face of Battle, then think again.

Thanks for your input.

Of course there is no such thing as a surgical strike.

My dad bombed Germany during WW II flying a B-17.

He later married my mother who was in Hannover, Germany.

Hitler was evil.

When you say "innocents", what do you mean ?

I feel that innocents are those folks that live in that city and do not kill people.
They just want to live in peace.

Do you think ISIS is a good group ?

Andy

I think entertaining the whole concept of discharging a nuclear bomb is a horrific direction to embark upon.

I guess those folks wouldn't appreciate having their homes turned into radioactive waste piles.

Only the dead have seen the end of war.

Nuclear weapons? Sure, as if the world wouldn't have enough problems already and as if we weren't at the brink of another huge world war.

Besides, it would only kill barbaric people thousands of miles away from (your) home. So, who cares?

(Just in case someone doesn't get it, the above was sarcasm).

if some A-HOLE sets one off

then BOTH the USA and CCCP will remove that bit of realstate from the planet


the WORLD blow back on the idiot that dose it will be so WAY WAY WAY over the top

it will make the bombing of Berlin look like a 4th grad pissing match

You personally disgust me. Next time you have "thoughts" like this, please keep them to yourself.

I agree. It's astounding how people nowadays overtly talk about using the most destructive human invention to kill people so lightly. The naïveté of these "thoughts" would be amusing if they weren't dangerous. Sadly, the world is ruled a bunch of people who pretty much think like this.

So if I don't believe ISIS is a good group then nuclear weapons need to be on the table? What do you thing the 2nd or 3rd echelon effects would be of the US using a nuclear weapon in one of the most unstable areas of the world.

Yes, and no. I actually believe the the most prevalent nuclear power nations do realize that they have a very great and somber responsibility to consider any use of weapons of mass destruction.

Nation states, reasonable ones which participate in the world economy and collaborate together in a positive manner DO understand that the taking of life is a very serious consequence.

The whole purposes of the UN are for peacekeeping, security, human rights, and economic development.

Yes there are atrocities in the world. Hopefully there are better solutions than employing weapons of mass destruction.

@Fixit7, unfortunately the whole way you considered this topic is very dismissive and scary, and is exactly the attitude which I feel concerns people.

back in the 80's and 90's at SF and tech cons there were common buttons
-- now how many of us had 20+ buttons on our t-shirts

The button had a quote
"Nuke them till they Glow, then shoot them in the dark"

BUT what young wiper snaps forget is this was related to
---- SANE-FREEZE !!!!

turning dark hummer back on the military

My post was not really a serious proposal.

I am just real tired of evil people.

Take care.

I mean persons who have nothing to do with anything, but get caught in the backwash, such as the wedding parties, newspersons, children, and others who have been victims of "precision" drone strikes, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of others who have been "collateral damage."

They don't give me warm fuzzy feelings, but I don't think that the problems that have led to ISIS can be solved by more bombs from Europe and the US; indeed, a strong argument can be made that US bombs and the Iraq war created the environment for ISIS.

A discussion of the geopolitical issues in the Middle East is well beyond the scope of this forum, so I will restrict myself to saying this: The US and Europe's track record in attempting to deal with them by force has been--er--less than optimal; indeed, many of the current issues are the result of actions by Europe (particularly the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire after World War I) and the US (after World War II, particularly the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Iran and the installation of the Shah at the behest of the outfit that currently does business as "British Petroleum").

There is nothing to indicate that any new aggressive (as opposed to "peace-keeping," whatever the heck that is) military efforts by the US or Europe will achieve better outcomes and much evidence to indicate the opposite.

"Because we are already there" is not a good reason for sending more persons to die in vain.

If you ask me nicely, I'll tell you what I really think.