To nuke or not to nuke? (ISIS)

2014-10-06T19:23:47-04:00

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?

Response by MSG Wade Huffman made Oct 6 at 2014 7:34 PM

2014-10-06T19:34:04-04:00

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.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Oct 6 at 2014 7:47 PM

2014-10-06T19:47:46-04:00

That is a BIG threshold to cross, because once you let the nuclear genie out of the bottle, it's not going back in. I would not be for it unless we REALLY had no choice....or in a massive retaliation for them using a WMD. The problem is, though, WHO and WHAT do we nuke? ISIS is not a nation-state. They do not own things that are worth nuking. In fact, what they own are arguably locations that are being held hostage and are cooperating under duress.

Response by SPC David S. made Oct 6 at 2014 8:19 PM

2014-10-06T20:19:59-04:00

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.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2014 8:38 PM

2014-10-06T20:38:21-04:00

I know that the environmentalists will point to the long term damage that would be done if we "nuked" NW Iraq/ NE Syria. I will tell you that there isn't much to ruin out there. Very desolate. Little to no vegetation anywhere. So, I would say... go for it.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 7 at 2014 12:22 AM

2014-10-07T00:22:43-04:00

No we shouldn't, but we will eventually need ground troops to totally remove ISIS.

Response by MSgt Keith Hebert made Oct 7 at 2014 10:55 AM

2014-10-07T10:55:16-04:00

no no no and i say that because once that box is open it will never close.
let just put boots on the grounds with someone leading like black jack pershing

Response by SSgt James Stanley made Oct 7 at 2014 7:52 PM

2014-10-07T19:52:14-04:00

No, not an option, too much collateral damage, and you'll never catch them out in the desert alone where a tactical nuke could be used. They're like all the rest of the bad boys over there, They're always mixed in with the general population. We'll just have to keep picking them off with the A-10 Warthogs, the drones, and the attack helicopters.

Response by PFC Mickey Wellmon made Oct 8 at 2014 6:53 PM

2014-10-08T18:53:31-04:00

Using nuclear weapons would be the last line of defense. We aren't even committed to ground troops yet. Nukes are step number 3,746. We are on number 6. We need boys on the ground while we have support from other countries in the region. That support will not last.

Response by Capt David Christiansen made Oct 8 at 2014 7:39 PM

2014-10-08T19:39:10-04:00

The Japanese are some of our best allies!

Response by CPO Craig Sherrick made Oct 8 at 2014 10:03 PM

2014-10-08T22:03:31-04:00

I am in complete agreement with you MAJ Robert Petrarca. If one thinks about it the A-Bomb would resolve this entire mess. We need to kill each and every last one of them and the A-Bomb is just what we need to get the job done with a quickness. We bombed innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, here there is nothing but evil that all the world wants to get rid of.

Response by SFC Patrick McDonough made Oct 9 at 2014 8:05 AM

2014-10-09T08:05:59-04:00

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.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 9 at 2014 8:57 PM

2014-10-09T20:57:21-04:00

Using nuclear weapons will have the opposite of intended effect. It will further galvanize the survivors and bring greater sympathy to the organization's cause.

Response by SPC Mark Garner made Oct 9 at 2014 10:03 PM

2014-10-09T22:03:33-04:00

Even after the United States dropped nukes on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the command staff still did not want to surrender, and would have continued the fighting indefinitely had the Emperor himself not stepped in and said "enough". That was an enemy with defined borders and military power. If they still didn't want to surrender after having two nuclear devices dropped on them, I don't think isis will either, they will just scatter and reorganize like cockroaches. So, no, it's not worth letting the genie out of the bottle for that, in my humble opinion.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2014 9:07 AM

2014-10-10T09:07:54-04:00

Nuking does nothing to destroy an ideology. We nuked Japan in order to convince their government that their continued resistance was impossible. Governments tend to include the survival of their people/nation in their calculus of how to react to destructive force (Hitler was an exception, ordering the complete destruction of Germany - but even people within his own government worked to thwart his final orders).

Terrorist ideologues, on the other hand, almost welcome the overkill of massive bombing, artillery, or the (as yet theoretical) use of nuclear weapons on them. Although a nuclear strike on Mosul would kill many of the DAESHi thugs, it would also produce massive casualties among the population that is likely trapped there. Those casualties would make great propaganda for those continuing the campaign - "See, the US is really trying to murder as many Muslims as possible! We must defend the Faith!"

Response by LT Kirk Saboda made Oct 10 at 2014 9:16 AM

2014-10-10T09:16:01-04:00

I see a lot of great points raised here and I agree with many of them. I don't see any WMD obliterating the concept of terrorism. I used to always say that we, THE US, lack the moral courage to ever deploy one of those weapons against an enemy short of an existential threat to our homeland and people. Our arsenal was built, and our procedures developed to wage a war that hopefully no longer exists - an escalating conflict against a technological equal relying on tactical weapons to compensate for disparity in traditional forces and strategic weapons in a quid-pro-quo exchange.

It's unfortunate and many times I longs for the resolved that saved my father's life ( he was training for OPERATION CORONET when the bombs were used with the 1st Mar Div- the operation plan made no mention of his division after D+3 since it would expected to be reduced by then due to loses) but we no longer have the political resolve to do that. not even close! Even if, a nuke went of in DC- who would we retaliate against? The issue with war against terror is we fight an idea, born in ignorance, and it would have no effect but to galvanize the remnants with more resolve. mind you- With a healthy respect to the courage, determination, capabilities and ingenuity of our military, it is our political system that is flawed AND I am very proud that unlike most countries the military does submit to the political system.

Response by LTC Edward Ledford made Oct 10 at 2014 4:03 PM

2014-10-10T16:03:14-04:00

Are you seriously asking if we should nuke--tactically or otherwise--anyone or any place over ISIS? Give me a break. That's not even a question worth addressing. To even think that nuking anyone is going to solve the problem of Islamic extremism, or any kind of extremism for that matter, is ludicrious, and to imagine that turning parts of Syria and Iraq into a glass parking lot would have any tactical advantage over the sort of threat that ISIS and other extremist organizations or mentalities or philosophies or cultures simply betrays an vast ignorance of what this is all about. What you might do in dropping a nuke is turn the entire world against the U.S., and certainly the entire Arab world, Sunni, Shia, and otherwise. Want to give extremists a good reason to hate the U.S., drop a nuke. Sorry to be so blunt, Rob, but it's a ridiculous question.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2014 4:21 PM

2014-10-10T16:21:27-04:00

U.S. policy on nuclear weaponry is no first use. So unless ISIS started using radioactive material in their bombs (which is not an entirely unrealistic possibility), I don't see this ever happening.

Even if they do set the precedent, though, it wouldn't do any good unless ISIS did us the favor of all gathering in a single area to be nuked. As MSG Wade Huffman said, that's very unlikely to happen given their current disbursement.

And even if they set the precedent, and gathered all together, and got nuked, I wouldn't bet on them not cropping up again. Ideas are very hard to kill, especially ones tied to religion, which people react to on a gut level rather than an intellectual level.

Response by SSgt Robert Dorner made Oct 10 at 2014 5:00 PM

2014-10-10T17:00:48-04:00

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!

Response by SSG John Erny made Oct 10 at 2014 5:05 PM

2014-10-10T17:05:13-04:00

Pull a General Black Jack Pershing !!! Pig Blood, and train a lot of female snipers both = hell

Response by PO1 Steven Kuhn made Oct 10 at 2014 5:22 PM

2014-10-10T17:22:38-04:00

A nuclear strike affects more than just the country targeted due to the radioactive fallout. If it cannot be done conventionally we must be ready to consider the alternative. On a more direct approach, I believe we need to more closely screen our supposed allies and send no aid to any place where it may end up in the hands of radical idiots wanting to use it against us. Also, I think we need to change our rules of engagement to ensure our fighting men and women have the highest chance of returning home alive. Lastly, we need to drop to good guy policeman of the world image. If we have to go in a kick a country in the teeth, then we own that country until they have paid for our war expenses and we owe them not a dang thing. Last (but not least) we need to get the UN off of US soil as they have been working for years to take away our American way of life from us! When I run for President, things will change (until someone with $$$$$ hires some sniper to take me out - then hopefully my VP will take up the torch and America will get good and mad....) and people will be held accountable for violating their oaths of offices. I swore before God to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign or domestic, and right now we have a lot of both to deal with! May God Bless America, and may Americans pull their heads out of the sand and fight for the rights they so casually use and sometimes abuse!

Response by PO2 Mike OBrien made Oct 10 at 2014 8:19 PM

2014-10-10T20:19:14-04:00

New forum... The " BIG " message Is ludicrous. The " BIGGER " Message would be STAND the F*** America. This Liberal Idealism, Politically Correct, Pumpkin Headed Bangey Eyed Cambodian Relief Fund Poster Child Rhetoric is RIDICULOUS!!........

Response by PO1 Richard Smith made Oct 10 at 2014 9:14 PM

2014-10-10T21:14:17-04:00

If they would have done it back in 1980, I feel we wouldn't have this problem now.

Response by SGT Donald Howard made Oct 11 at 2014 11:30 AM

2014-10-11T11:30:22-04:00

To start with ,the use of a nuke no matter how small the yield might be would open the lid on a host of negative things such as,!:Using it on such a target as ISIS would likely be a green light to any despots like N.Korea or Iran when they finally have one,to feel free to use theirs. 2:Using a nuke on such an unworthy target would very likely send the Russians,Chinese and everyone else (rightly so)to consider us the biggest threat.ISIS will have to be dealt with conventionally,it is not nukes that are needed to defeat them,it is moral courage and the absolute will to act and do what needs to be done by our leaders.Unfortunately in the west at this time in history,that is sorely lacking.
What is however not in short supply is hand wringing,cowardice and fecklessness.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 11 at 2014 12:20 PM

2014-10-11T12:20:45-04:00

Nope, but I think NATO's strike on their HQs and convoys was a great start to the end of ISIS.

Response by SGT Eric Stites made Oct 11 at 2014 4:37 PM

2014-10-11T16:37:32-04:00

The biggest threat ISIS poses in my opinion is the psychological one. It's a little scary to watch someone saw a guy's head off with a steak knife while he obviously screams and gurgles once his lungs start to fill with blood - at least till his spinal cord is severed and he goes limp.

I was told that in WWII, we dropped a lot of 2-3ft long condoms all over Tokyo, labeled "Size: medium" on them. I'd say it made a statement. We should do the same to ISIS - their religion forbids any contact with anything made from a pig. Well, we in the South do have a big problem with an overpopulation of non-native wild hogs. I say we trap them, feed them the local roadkill, and ship them to known ISIS regions and let them loose.

Could you imagine how bad that would mess with someone? After he sees his cohort get trampled and eaten by a wild hog?

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 13 at 2014 7:44 AM

2014-10-13T07:44:39-04:00

Nuking wouldn't be the greatest idea in this day n age when so many countries have some sort of nuclear capabilities say we drop a tactical nuke you are playing a dangerous game... who is to say if drop one someone else isnt going to want to show that they got a bigger better nuke or try to show off their military capabilities.. I.E Russia, North Korea, China... Pakistan even.
Just think how Taliban, Al-qaida, ISIS has been running For every one person you kill another 4 join so imagine u nuke them that will just make more wanna join ....its Pandora's box as simple as that

Response by AN John Gabrish made Oct 14 at 2014 7:02 PM

2014-10-14T19:02:08-04:00

It's time

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2014 10:31 AM

2014-10-15T10:31:17-04:00

To be honest I don't see how using any type of WMD would be beneficial to this fight. I think that it would only strengthen their cause, as well as that of any other radical group. If they are using a rally cry of 'America is the Devil' and then we come and reign fire and death on them from above, that will give them credibility. They can also use the standpoint of 'America doesn't care about civilians, just look what they did." Not to mention countries like Iran and North Korea, would see this as an open door policy to the use of WMDs, and would have no problem using them against their enemies, or even perceived enemies, be they real or not.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Oct 19 at 2014 9:07 PM

2014-10-19T21:07:17-04:00

"That is the question" (Angry Hamlet)

Response by SGT Nathan Huff made Jun 9 at 2015 9:53 PM

2015-06-09T21:53:59-04:00

Nukes are never the right answer for any conflict. The only reason we used it against Japan was because it was felt that it was the only option available to force a quick end to the war. Even then we still had troops standing by to invade if Japan did not surrender.

ISIS is not a country and they are not in control of their own lands. To Nuke them would be a true crime.

Response by Sgt David G Duchesneau made Jun 9 at 2015 9:59 PM

2015-06-09T21:59:38-04:00

It sure as hell would take care of the problem and send out one hell of a message. It would be like it was in the old days when anybody messed with us they knew that they were going to catch hell!

Response by SSG Leonard Johnson made Jun 10 at 2015 12:41 AM

2015-06-10T00:41:31-04:00

why don't we nuke all the commies and socialist in Russia and China along with a few others......we can always handle ISIS in a few years once we get some descent leadership in a couple years.....I don't mean the C word either ;)

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 10 at 2015 1:27 AM

2015-06-10T01:27:03-04:00

Well, we are the only country that has ever used them in war so there is that. Couple that with the fact that we would not only not be eliminating ISIS but we would be killing thousands of innocent people. Finally, those that we had on the fence or the radicals that we did not get would have a radioactive (literally and figuratively) sign to point at to galvanize the hatred towards the USA.

Response by SSG Lloyd Becker BSBA-HCM, MBA made Jun 10 at 2015 3:07 AM

2015-06-10T03:07:14-04:00

As an old NBC NCO, I say Bar-B-Que them. As stated by Robert Duvall, in Apocolyse, "I love the smell of napalm in the morning.

Response by PO3 David Fries made Jun 10 at 2015 6:46 AM

2015-06-10T06:46:26-04:00

Even if you remove all of the primary reasons not to use it, I don't believe that it would be effective. I almost believe that it would have the opposite effect .