If you were given three options to deal with ISIS, which would you choose?

Diplomacy will not work with folks that want you dead. ISIS and other terrorist organizations have to be seen as a world problem and relentlessly pursued with all the means at our disposal.

Is nuking the sub-continent too radical???

1. There is no diplomacy with these people. They are radical, focused and have an agenda - convert the world to Islam or die trying, and they don't mind the latter.
2. History has proven time and again you can't control ground from the air. Enough on this subject.
3. The parts you forgot:
A. One has to get into their mentality. You have to understand your enemy. In order to do this you got to drop the politically correct BS. Profiling works, others have used it and found out it does work.
B. Understand our western style of government will never work in the middle eastern area because most of these people have no allegiance to a country. If you look back in their history, true country borders were made by Europeans, and that's part of the mess we are still reaping the sour fruit from.
C. These people have no respect for talk unless you first smack them across the head with a 2x4 (metaphorically speaking), then once you got their attention lay down the law.
D. Once you lay down the law (draw line in the sand), then don't back down, they have no respect for that.
E. You have to understand these people have no respect for life(theirs or yours) nor do they respect the way anyone else wants to live, so you better be prepared to deal with them on their own terms.
F. Just remember they don't have ROE, so you'd better review how you limit your own troops.

3. We all know boots on the ground is the only way to get the job done.

Annihilate, annihilate, annihilate!

Diplomacy will not work in a situation like this. And why risk putting troops on the ground if we can take them out with drones. I prefer to keep as many of our people alive as possible.

Hit them like we mean it.

None of the listed options would work. 15 years in and what have we gotten? If you can name ONE thing out of 15 years of playing wack a mole with terrorists, I'll chill. Killing UBL didn't change anything, killing or THINKING we killed ISIS leaders has done what again? Having a TON of suspected terrorists in GITMO has done what? Have we tried any of them in court or military tribunal? Giving Iraq and Afghanistan technology and materiel support...nope. You didn't mention dropping nukes all over the ME. But even that wouldn't work. Carpet bombing....wake me up when that works. I'm going to tweak this response a little. DIPLOMACY would stand a far better chance than war. You can kill the man, but you cannot kill the idea, so to "force" a change, go to the nation states around them and hold them responsible. Tell them through diplomatic means, we will begin an embargo and levy heavy sanctions on you for not making any substantial attempts to stem this tide. SA can see it, Iran, Iraq, Libya, every Nation over there, see's it. So if you make it next to impossible for them to make money, you will see a SWIFT turn in the number of folks running around with black flags in pickups. While they're doing everything possible to get their money back, we begin to focus our attention to the youth of the affected. We teach them through the use of moderate or centralist minded Imams, in Madrasas that can be localized to them. They are the future we don't need to fight if we make change now. Reading some of the comments, all folks want to do is kill, kill, bomb, and in the end, the IDEA survives another day and grows again. How many do we need to loose before we make change over there using the resources already in place? Put embargo's on oil, and you'll have SA's DIRECT ATTENTION. Without that money coming in, the ruling family better haul ass. Iraq and Iran are both in the same boat. Place heavy embargoes on other exported/imported materials they need and find a good chair and some popcorn and watch how fast what we used countless lives over 15 years to do gets done in less than 12 months.

The threat that Da'esh/ISIS/ISIL poses to the US Homeland...will boots on ground (BOG) solve it? Not really: the primary threat that they pose to our Homeland is through the radicalization of someone already living in North America.

Same question re: drone strikes? Same answer.

Diplomacy? Same answer.

Did everybody have SO much fun deploying every year to little or no effect that we're anxious to start that again?

It's a UW fight that will require a Whole of Government approach to defeat the problem, and to comprehensively defeat the problem, we must interrupt the radicalization process so that they don't make "reinforcements" in our own backyard. And no, restricting immigration based on religious preference is NOT the answer. How do you know someone's a Muslim? They'd have to tell you, there's no blood test. How do you know someone's a terrorist before they commit a crime? They'd have to tell you, there is no blood test. So why can't we just keep all the brown people from the Middle East out? Because we are charged with defending the "American Way of Life", and if we compromise our fundamental values in order to protect our fundamental values, we have failed fundamentally.

So everybody relax. They're not a significant threat to our Homeland, they ARE losing.

7.62, Claymores, JDAM