To nuke or not to nuke? (ISIS)

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.