Posted on Oct 6, 2014
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
20.3K
119
71
8
7
1
In all seriousness, this is truly academic.

We've all joked about it and we all know the true ramifications of this question. With the ISIS "virus" growing seemingly uncontrollably, if the tactical and political conditions could ever be right, should we send them the "big" message? Would it be enough to end ISIS once and for all?
Avatar feed
Responses: 35
MSG Wade Huffman
12
12
0
Edited >1 y ago
Well, it was inevitable that someone 'went there', and here it is. First of all, are you asking about strategic or tactical nukes? Either way I doubt it wound put a final end to ISIS since they now have footholds in so many different areas, unless you are talking about nuking multiple nations. If they were all concentrated in ONE geographic area, AND they had a central leadership system, then I think it would be a possibility, but that isn't the case.
(12)
Comment
(0)
CPL David Mangino
CPL David Mangino
>1 y
A couple of MOAB's would do the trick
(4)
Reply
(0)
SSgt Robert Dorner
SSgt Robert Dorner
>1 y
I also thought of using MOAB's, Daisy Cutter's, Fuel Air explosives and Carpet bombing on the larger ISIS groups. Mixed in with the Drones and the A-10 and Apache units to surgically hit leaders, logistics and smaller intelligence command and control. Then like in the "Art of War" hit ISIS weaker units with corporation's like the old "Black Water" Gun's for hire, that are not tied to the "Law's of War" like the Geneva or Hague Convention. These types of professionals can truly deliver the same fear and pain ISIS is delivering, without cutting off heads, but maybe some Hog Wash as I call it could be just as painful and change their methods? BTW - No Nukes - until one is known for us against America, Europe, Israel or any of our precious allies. I am very sure that the Israeli's would love to share a few "USED" ones in Syria or any other location if warranted!
(1)
Reply
(0)
PVT Andrew Burd
PVT Andrew Burd
>1 y
SSgt you need to stop using apostrophes when you make words plural... not what they're for. That's a misuse of grammatical resources.
(4)
Reply
(0)
SSgt Robert Dorner
SSgt Robert Dorner
7 y
PVT Burd, I see that when spelling MOAB's and Daisy Cutter's I did use apostrophes. I have been out of school for over 33 years and thought it was correct. Especially with the acronym MOAB as being plural? Anyway, I am very sorry, zero disrespect meant Private. Oh, I did use it on the word Laws! Thank you for the much needed grammar education.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Patrick McDonough
11
11
0
I like the idea of nuking the entire region just for the sake of sending a message but as MSG Keith Hebert said, it would open a box that we could never close. However, a few EMP bursts over certain regions destroying their electronic capabilities to communicate and coordinate might be a better option. Too bad for the general public and western media in the area but war is hell.
(11)
Comment
(0)
SGT Micah Morris
SGT Micah Morris
>1 y
set up to monitor, shut down, STRIKE, bring systems up and triangulate to the first things that come online....that is a real solution that need to be exploited!!!
(2)
Reply
(0)
PO1 Tim Stadt
PO1 Tim Stadt
>1 y
Like you said once Pandora's box is open it wont close end of the game.
(0)
Reply
(0)
LCpl Richard Pool
LCpl Richard Pool
>1 y
They are used to operating with a minimum to nonexistent level of technology..and any military hardware they might have on the ground..... is probably what they siezed from Iraq..in other words...Ours... and hardened... an EMP would have limited effectiveness in that scenario.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SPC David Stephenson
7
7
0
Edited >1 y ago
I just find the nuke option, even tactical nukes, pose more problems than solutions. As we are trying to stop the proliferation of WMD I think it would send a conflicted message to the world in using them.
(7)
Comment
(0)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
>1 y
I agree. wanted to see what others thought.
(3)
Reply
(0)
Sgt Robert Holden
Sgt Robert Holden
>1 y
It would be as useful at eliminating ISIS (or any terrorist organization) as trying to kill all the mosquitoes in South Carolina by nuking my back yard. I'm not sure where this threat, global terrorism, will meet its end. There will always be fanatics. What will likely end up happening is a good old fashioned out-of-control virus that wipes out 1/3-1/2 of the planet and sends us back to the dark ages. Then there will be out of control book burning, rampant fear killings and distrust, and I'm sure someone will set off a nuke or two by accident, or most of the power plants will melt down after the technicians die from whatever horrible virus hits them, and our little blue marble will be a toxic dump for a few thousand years. By then people in the Amazon will have advanced and they'll be ruining - err - running, the show. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.
(3)
Reply
(0)
SP6 Dave Martin
SP6 Dave Martin
>1 y
Robert, I have to agree with you. The enemy is global, so a particular strike would do nothing but fuel the fire. We lost our "virginity" as it was put on the news, when the twin towers were hit. I fear, that if we used low yield nukes, it would cause the modern (post nagasaki) world to lose their fear of using same said nukes. I also agree with a previous gentleman, that if they're that concentrated, nukes aren't necessary. What we're missing is resolve. We need to hunt them down and eliminate them. I'm afraid that's not possible without boots on the ground. It's not even possible unless you have the right boots on the ground. Unleash the A-10. Get teams on the ground. Hunt them down.
(4)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close