Is the Nuclear Option the correct option?
Thoughts on this /pol/?
http://fortune.com/2016/03/23/trump-nuclear-weapons-isis/
>>68824470
glass them
>>68824470
So close to the real solution...
>>68824470
Leaving anything off the table is bad form.
>Isis is not a country.
>Nukes would do much more harm than good.
>Killing the Isis foot soldiers will not kill Isis, especially when its the footsoldiers in ONE area.
>Many many countries will be mad at us.
>Leftists will laugh and say "told you he is a bad person to be president"
>>68824470
>>68824470
I doubt they would need it, If the US wanted ISIS gone it would be done in 6 months no problems.
Why are nukes such a big deal?
>>68825045
>Nukes would do much more harm than good.
How exactly would Nuking Isis do more harm then good?
>>68824470
Europe is definitely at the point where they need rhetoric like this. USA idk, maybe 10 years ago. I hobeelty suspect ISIS is holding off attacks so we elect a weak Democrat, then they can unleash hell with less consequence.
>>68824470
He's trying to scare the shit out of ISIS. His goal is to make them think he's an ABSOLUTE MADMAN who will do anything to reach his goals.
>>68824470
Holy fuck... we probably should have stopped memeing this guy to the presidency a while ago, and no it has gone so far that I just can't stop!
It's fascinating!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
>>68825185
If you nuke your enemies, they win.
>>68824767
I wish this gif would slow the hell down so I can read some of the text. Anyone have it in WebM form?
>>68825232
I really think Trump would use Nukes....
I'd be psyched, let them walk around their cube like this.
Srsly, a couple nukes on Medina and Mecca and everything will be right in the universe... And I'm a card carrying libtard.
Agreed. Time to nuke ISIS to show we aren't fucking around.
>>68825185
Radiation, "wildlife", other countries getting mad at us, cleanup will be expensive, loss of millions of lives that may not even be a part of Isis, definite way of not being re-elected, etc.
>>68825396
I second this.
>>68825344
>If you nuke your enemies, they win.
That makes no sense
>>68825595
Yeah, I mean the goal is to get ISIS, not everything else. Gotta lure them out first.
>>68825344
They might 'win' in your eyes, but in reality - they are sub-atomic particles.
This isn't a sub-reddit
>middle east gets nuked
>they become kawaii and docile like Japan
are nukes the only way to pacify a group of people?
ISIS came out of the family of the people we nukes before so nuking them would probably just make more extremists
>>68825806
What? How is ISIS related to Japan in any way?
>>68825645
>>68825732
Lurk moar.
>>68824470
Wait until he reads the still classified 9/11 reports detailing the Saudi governments involvement
>>68825595
>other countries getting mad at us,
What country would be mad at the US for nuking Isis?
>>68825786
Calling them people *is* a bit of a stretch
>>68824470
bigger question is why havent we nuked isis ?
>>68825806
We nuked Japan, genius. Eventually they'll t run out of numbers. It would have to coupled with a mass round up throught NA and Europe as well of all muslims and we'd just dump them in Saudi Arabia or something.
>>68825645
If Muslims kill us, we win.
I wish I was american so I could vote for Trump.
>>68826094
I'll do it for you.
>>68826141
Make America great again.
Seems like an ineffective threat vs a group who embrace martyrdom and have Armageddon as the final goal
>>68825954
Probably the country we nuked in the name of "killing ISIS"
>>68825595
>>Radiation,
That's the point.
"wildlife",
>>It's the fucking dessert!!
>> other countries getting mad at us,
Russia would buy us another Statue of Liberty
>> cleanup will be expensive,
Fuck it, that's Saudi Arabia's problem.
>>loss of millions of lives that may not even be a part of Isis,
A dead sand-nig is a good sand-nig
>>definite way of not being re-elected, etc.
Mmm, debateable... Someone's got to put pants on with these subhumans
The only thing they understand is biblical level destruction. If we bombed the Mecca during the hadj many Muslim survivors would convert to Christianity because we unequivocally handed them their dirty asses.
>>68825452
And so will ISIS, a good bluff makes everyone believe.
>>68826059
I still cant believe Canada actually elected this guy
>>68825344
Lets give muslims nukes so we win.
>>68826824
All traffic lights were inspired by your flag...
>>68826713
We don't vote for him directly. We vote for individuals in each riding that belong to a political party because that individual will represent our riding the best. The political party that has the most MPs wins and chooses some cuck to represent them. Lots of people around where I live don't pay attention to who will be the figurehead for the party and they just vote for the MP that they like best.
Impeach when.
>>68824470
GLASS EM
L
A
S
S
E
M
>says nukes are an absolute last resort
>THIS JUST IN TRUMP WANTS TO NUKE MUSLIMS
fuck the media
>>68824470
>trump is willing to consider every option in a battle against a psychopathic army bent on world domination, that would not hesitate to murder the entire west with nukes to achive their apocalyptic goals if they could.
Am I not supposed to like trump because of this?
>>68825264
You can't unsummon the
>Meme Magic
>>68826824
Spain BTFO
Well done gay pride, well done
>tfw this webem is coming to life
It's not surprising. Many people who grew up in the Cold War are not alive anymore to educate the youngins on why the nuclear option is always a major no-no, so we get hotheads every now and then advocating for this shit.
Where would you even strike? Raqqa? It's survived like 530 sorties so far. It won't do that much damage. Mosul? Insignificant. Mecca/Medina? Enjoy having Pakistan nuke you back.
>>68826242
I'm afraid that with this disgraceful pansy led EU, it's Make theWEST Great Again.
US, you may be our final stand. We put our hopes on you to change the world to wake up our people.
>>68827561
>It won't do that much damage
Are you literally autistic? A Nuke would literally obliterate the entire city
>>68825396
>>68825628
If you wanna reenact it, Shadow President is really easy to get running on DOSbox.
>>68827561
I'm a liberal faggot & old enough to have watched "The Day After" as a kid on TV. I still think Mecca & Medina should be nuked. Pakistan can eat a dick, if they so much as fart too loud India will blow them off the map.
>>68824470
As much as I'd love for it to happen, nuclear fallout's a bitch to deal with and won't make the US very popular.
>>68827561
>Enjoy having Pakistan nuke you back.
Except the states has Intercontinental missile defense systems, also, and sorry to say, but america can afford to be bullies because no sane country would ever even threaten to nuke american soil. If Paki, or any other country for that matter, launches a nuclear warhead, the US can create a huge fuck-off hole where that country used to be before their own missile even reaches US airspace where it would be deterred anyway.
>>68824470
Only an idiot would "rule out" using nukes against their enemy under any circumstances. And anyone who claimed to is full of shit. If ISIS ever uses a dirty bomb anywhere in the Western world, I guarantee you that the entire middle east will be glassed that very same day by a dozen different nuclear superpowers.
>>68825045
Nuke the Entire Middle east but make sure it does not hit Christian areas with dust
>>68827561
How does Pakistan have any nukes when they are too busy praying 5 times a day to learn maybe we should nuke pakis 1st
>>68827948
I meant damage to ISIS, not the town itself, desu senpai. You can't fight ideas with nukes.
>>68828498
NORAD can't stop every ICBM. Pakistan has something like 120 warheads right?
Any way you put it, there is no such thing as a "controlled" nuclear attack. It will most definitely escalate to other countries, US will probably be kicked out of the UN and NATO. Russia or China will probably try invading. Give it a few years and that's the end of the world right there. That's exactly what ISIS wants.
glass them
>>68824470
Trump's a RINO asshole, but he's right.
Nukes are always on the table.
Media being retarded again. All Trump is saying is that he wouldn't completely rule it out.
He gets asked if he would give Muslims identifying bracelets and shit, and he says he would have to think about it
>WOOW! TRUMP WANTS MUSLIMS TO WEAR YELLOW PATCHES AND SHEEEET!!
He gets asked if he would use harsher torture methods than waterboarding, and he says he might, that it's not off the table
>WOOW! TRUMP WANTS TO BEAT UP MUSLIMS AND CUT THEIR DICKS OFF UNTIL THEY BLEED TO DEATH!!
These people are retarded.
All Trump is doing he is showing strength. He says that he isn't going to mess around.
Obviously he isn't going to use nukes, but it benefits us if people think he might be willing to use nukes. Obviously he isn't going to make Muslims wear yellow patches, but what he says shows that he isn't fucking around and trying to please the PC crowd.
ISIS strongholds are mostly shitholes in the middle of the desert. Nuking them would be no big deal.
>>68824470
Is this real
>>68824470
because trumps favorables are already too high and his unfavorables are too low.
let's definitely start ranting about how USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! is gonna start shitting out nukes randomly all over the Middle East
This fucking piece of shit needs to be in a fucking asylum. Anyone who is supporting him at this time needs to be locked up for the safety of all humanity.
>>68824767
What game is this
>>68829258
KEK!
Listen you dumb faggot, I fought over there, if you nuked the sandnigs they'd realise who they are fucking with and stop fighting. Two bombs on Mecca & Medina are a lot cheaper than all my brothers who fell. It's psychological, just like Japan.
BTW change your tampon, it fucking stinks
>>68825344
Don't you see.
I need some militaryfaggot to help me out here:
By "nuking" I traditionally understand hiroshima-style bombing, with much more powerful bombs missile.
But what if we used tactical missiles, much smaller than Hiroshima? Like small enough to generate significant radiation that would fuck up ISIS, but not big enough to create a worldwide shitstorm.
I'm basically thinking about a standard bombing, like those that happen everyday, only with uranium-enriched bombs that would make the land inhabitable for a few years.
Can we do that and if yes why haven't we?
>>68829911
Yes, retard. Kill yourself.
All he is saying is that he wouldn't rule out using nukes because that's what nukes are for. We have nukes so we can use them to SCARE the enemies into not fucking with us.
If you say ''nope, never using the nukes. No''. You're just weak.
Obviously Trump isn't going to use the nukes, aspie.
>>68824470
DEUS VULT
>>68824470
Why the Fuck not? Sword, Arrow, Musket, Machine Gun, Napalm, Nuke. It's called EVOLOUTION.
Some education for you guys
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
>>68829258
>NORAD can't stop every ICBM.
So?
The US can probably know within 5 min of launch and, as I said, they can blow any country off the map before they can even hit you because you have faster missiles with better targeting systems, not to mention you have SIGNIFICANTLY more powerfull warheads.
> It will most definitely escalate to other countries
Ok, so who would step in and against who? The US? Who would actually threaten nuclear warfare on them? Iran? yeah, they'd be nuked out of existence so fast it wouldn't even be funny as everyone's kind of eyeballing them already. Russia? Why would they do that? They hate those sandnigs, you think they'd risk nuclear apocalypse over them? The EU? We don't even have the balls to call out these fucking savages blowing us up and raping ou women.
Yeah, that ain't happening
> Russia or China will probably try invading.
Invading who? the US? Why? Areyou out of your mind? The US actually could fight almost every nation at the same time. You have the largest army in the world by far. Not to mention you are much better equiped. Neither Russia or China would attempt invasion just because they swiftly nuked a shithole no one cares about. It wouldn't even make sense. Why would China want to get in a military altercation with the US instead of trying to beat them on a stage they actually have the advantage (economics). And again Russia would have no reason to attempt such a thing.
>>68826341
maybe they shouldnt house isis then
>>68825595
cleanup will be expensive
That's what crows, and vultures are for.
He literally said he wouldn't rule out anything and even if he wouldn't use nukes he wouldn't say it because he wants ISIS to think that he might
>>68830105
Shadow President it's a DOS game
>>68825786
>pacify
Try "Eliminate".
>>68830105
I think it's called Shadow President
>>68824470
Muslims have an attitude of "Inshallah" or, 'its gods will' for anything big that happens.
Let it happen.
>>68826015
Ya and we got cool shit. Transistor radios, Stereos, and Honda motorcycles. We nuke ISIS and we could get transistor Goat Pussy.
>>68830209
There's a lower limit to nuclear weapons, we can only make them so weak & it's incredibly more powerful than any conventional weapons. There are neutron & salted bombs which irradiate the area, but they fuck everything up because the radioactivity can't really be contained and the land is a no-go for too long.
>firing a nuclear weapon at a foreign country
>one of crazy Kim's few allies.
Does he just not see the possible consequences of these things?
>>68824470
>Is the Nuclear Option the correct option?
Yes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNc242mbiUs
>>68830407
>>68830106
Whoa! What's with the insults, my fellow countryman. I'm on your side, I want ISIS gone too, but nukes aren't the way to do it, that's all I'm saying.
Japan quit because the Soviets were also about to invade, not just because of the bombs. Remember that it took not 1 but 2 bombs, and promises of hundreds more for Japan to capitulate.
>>68830367
Do you realize how much power modern nuclear ICBMs have? You realize they can cluster and destroy entire metropolitan areas? Pakistan already has these types of nukes. Why would we risk even one American city being nuked for the Islamic threat?
I don't know why I said Russia or China will invade, you're right there, they probably won't. That's just the Cold War anti-commie paranoia in me. But man, all it takes is a couple nukes for nuclear winter. It really is the worst option.
>>68830783
Yeah, I read somewhere the bombs you dropped on the japs only somtheing like 10-15% of the fission material actually split.
But I don't think those were too big. They were only lethal within 5 miles or so. It's not that much.
Realistically speaking, what would happen if America dropped two B61 bombs over Raqqah and Mosul?
>>68825264
A FUCKING LEAF
>>68824470
Nuclear option is the only option anon
>>68830812
He does, retard. Try reading for once. For fucking once try reading before you reply. For fucking once.
>can't read
>criticizes other people on what he made up in his own head
What the fuck is wrong with you?
This is like me going ''Does Hawkins not realize that black holes have a strong gravitational pull?????''. Jesus Christ, American are so dumb. I think you guys might actually be worse than Canadians.
>>68830091
So spend a shitload of money. Send troops, equipment, and shoot them with guns? It would be a lot easier to Blow the Fuck out of them with a few Old, Obsolete Thermo Nuclear weapons delivered Strategically. Hell half the Fuckin Middle east is safely in Europe now so very little collateral damage.
>>68830381
That's fair.
Someone send a telegram to all of Europe and tell them to do some spring cleaning before The Don.
>>68830940
The Islamic Threat is a massive one on the entire world scale it was fine when they were only in their own regions but now they are everyplace and must take any means necessary to take them out and end them permanently regardless of any consequences by jew fruitcakes who control Europe
>>68830940
I think the question is why would Pakistan do it?
They have no guarantees they could actually hit the US, and they know for sure they could never, EVER beat them.
On the other hand, They'd be GUARANTEED to be extinct within 24h if they attempted to attack.
>>68830940
>nuclear winter
You'd need to fire off almost all of the nukes in the world for that to happen.
One or two detonations will not create a nuclear winter.
>>68824470
We eliminated other religions. Shakers, Branch Dividians, whats one more?
>>68830812
Why would anyone be even remotely concerned with NK?
They MIGHT have nuclear weapons that aren't even capable of reaching the WEST, a shit military and a beaten down small population. What can they POSSIBLY do? They'd be defeated within days without even using nuclear weaponry.
in general yes, there will be political consequences, but who cares what dickless cucks think. More rapefugees will pour out of the shithole muslim countries and attack host cuck countries, others will start to fight, everyone will be mad and blame us, but, I don't see that mattering much.
No, that's absolutely retarded.
if the USA decided it wanted to kill ISIS and did not care about collateral damage, they could simply utilize their conventional capabilities to absolutely level every single building and kill every single person in every country that the Caliphate has been established in.
Using nukes would open up a can of worms that might end up shattering human civilization. Plus there's no point in irradiating an area that might be of some value once all of the people have been removed.
Basically all the US needs to rain complete hell upon their enemies is the desire to do so.
Trump didn't say he'd nuke anybody anyways, he just said its not off the table.
America is not Russia, it does not have a doctrine that limits its nuclear arsenal to be used only in response to a nuclear attack.
America has always reserved the right to use their arsenal for first-strikes. America repeatedly refuses to adopt a No First Use doctrine even as other actors adopt this pledge.
Trump saying that unless are on the table is him basically saying that the sky is blue, and he is being misconstrued, as if his recognition of American doctrine only specifically relates to the Islamic State.
In reality, Trumps opinion on the matter is the operating procedure of the American military, and it has been ever since they developed nuclear weapons.
It's about fucking time. What do we have 10, 000 nuclear warheads for if we're never going to use them? Never? Not any of them? Fuck that.
Fire a few off.
>>68831907
>Using nukes would open up a can of worms that might end up shattering human civilization
stopped reading there
>>68831907
>Trump saying that unless are on the table
Trump saying that nukes are on the table
godammit
>>68831937
I honestly don't want to die without having witnessed a real nuclear attack.
>>68826059
if trudeau gets sent to syria as a peace offering and he get's beheaded, we all win
>>68832202
same
>>68831937
yeah lets waste isis and watch the butthurt worldwide
>>68832202
Careful what you wish for, you might get both.
Think this guy still thought well of Yamamoto?
>>68832371
Considered what countries have nukes, and what countries are most probable targets, I'll take my chances.
>>68825182
Because they irradiate the environment causing the entire area to be dangerous for a couple of generations. They're also extremely blunt force and do not discriminate. Another problem is the nuclear fallout which is radioactive and would spread via wind in all directions potentially irradiating the Mediterranean sea.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304620304575166263632513790
>April 6, 2010 12:01 a.m. ET
>WASHINGTON—The Obama administration will release a new national nuclear-weapons strategy Tuesday that makes only modest changes to U.S. nuclear forces, leaving intact the longstanding U.S. threat to use nuclear weapons first, even against non-nuclear nations.
so what, everybody says they're willing to use nukes. No president would say they're not willing to. The only reason they exist is to threaten to use them.
>>68830091
>he doesn't want the house of cards to fall
lmao, /pol/ has always been a death cult
>>68831987
It's ok, you're probably far too retarded and greasy to comprehend modern geopolitics.
I'll try to explain it in simple language.
If nukes are used against ISIS, other nuclear actors could use that precedence against proxies in the future, which could lead to rapid escalation. The thing with nukes is that when they come in to play, decisions must then be made far more quickly then in normal warfare.
>>68830091
>Continues to be more and more unpopular
>both the meme polls tracked for favourability and unfavourability have not changed significantly since August
>The chart tells the story!
???????
I uh, I think I'll stick with Scott Adams' master persuader series, since he's actually sane, and has tracked and predicted Trump's rise incredibly accurately.
If the USA did genocide several hundred thousand Muslims and completely leveled various Syrian cities the ensuing outrage from large Muslim countries like Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia would be crazy.
I think that it would PROMOTE jihad. Not to mention that all the countries surrounding Syria would get nuclear fallout dust irradiating their countries..
It would be a complete shitshow.
>>68824470
>What are tactical nukes
>>68832977
Not to mention that all the countries surrounding Syria would get nuclear fallout dust irradiating their countries..
GOOD
FUCK RAGHEADS
>>68824712
first post is best post
>>68832977
Muslims Genocide Syrians
>America Saves the day FUCK YEAH
>>68832977
Listen pantywaist, just talking about a well placed bomb on Mecca during the hadj.
>>68832977
1. allow ISIS to nuke some irrelevant shithole like London, Brussels or Berlin
2. muh NATO, muh article 5
3. drop nukes on Raqqa, Mosul
4. ???
5. Profit!
nobody would complain if ISIS strikes first
>>68832977
And what are they even going to do about it?
Trump literally just said that he would consider it... as would any other candidate, as well (at least I hope - we made them for a reason). Does not = he will.
>>68824767
>>68824767
oh fug i want this game
>>68833067
There would be immediate repercussions and potentially legitimate usage of defensive nukes. Who do you think Russia and China would align themselves with in order to disrupt US world hegemony?
>>68833271
Most likely the easiest way to start WW3, you know that there are several Muslim nations with access to nukes right?
>>68833303
>Give ISIS nukes
lmao kill yourself cornuto
>>68825954
Radeation travels
>>68833407
All of them would consider it. Trump is just the only one who has the balls to flat out say it.
Ask anyone else and they'd say ''n-no I would never use them! it's immoral! I can't possibly say I'd consider it, that would kill my poll numbers!''.
Nothing is off the table. Nukes can be used in certain cases. America nuked Japan and it turned out fine. You might have to use a nuke again one day, next time it's probably not going to be over a populated city full of civilians.
>mfw /pol wants to use nukes on essentially a citizen militia
>>68833584
>>68825185
And what target would you want to nuke? It's not like isis have big army bases of thousands and thousands of soldiers, they are mostly spread out so a nuke woulden't be usful. But maybe you are thinking about nuking raqqua the isis stronghold. Only problem it's a prety large city with alots of civilians.
>>68833835
Nobody is considering using nukes, not even Trump. He's just pandering.
The logistics, precedents set, people it would piss off and the violations of many treaties would make it political suicide even for Trump.
If Trump did actually authorize nukes being used in Syria he'd be charged with war crimes in the Hague, Russia and China would take the opportunity to completely destabilize US,
The US would be hit with trade sanctions from many nations overnight which would devastate their economy. A wave of terrorist attacks would wash over the western world, Turkroach, Iranian, Chinese and Eastern European hackers would go mental and take advantage of as much cybersecurity shit as they could.
It would be a colossal fuckup and really, when we have drones and other ways of killing them why would we?
Nukes aren't actual weapons they're used as something that stops sufficiently powerful nations invading each other. You're not supposed to actually use them sperglord.
>>68833584
> Who do you think Russia and China would align themselves with in order to disrupt US world hegemony?
They might, MIGHT side against them along with the EU on paper. Like a 9yo little girl calling onii-san a big meanie. But they would never, EVER actually strike the US, that's a ridiculous suggestion and they'd have no reason to do that.
>Most likely the easiest way to start WW3, you know that there are several Muslim nations with access to nukes right?
So what? If the ME DID decide to start WW3 and use their puny nuclear """"""""""arsenal"""""""" that would be the shortest war in history of humanity 'cause the US could pulverize the entire area within a day.
>>68833871
You mess with the bull.....
>>68830323
>Uses the word problematic unironically
Holy fuck, Wikipedia is a liberal hellhole
>>68834477
>They might, MIGHT side against them along with the EU on paper.
They'd be bound by UN conventions, treaties and public opinion. Russia, China, Turkey and India alone are sufficiently populous and powerful enough to influence the rest of the world.
People would see Trump as a literal madman and it would scare the shit out of them. There would be riots in the USA and he'd have many assassination attempts on his life.
>You mess with the bull.....
>portugal
I think you mean: you prep the bull....
>>68834253
>>68834477
>You mess with the bull.....
your wife's son is gonna be mad at you
>>68824470
what would happen to the joos and oil if they became radioactive?
I mostly care about the oil
>>68831244
A nuclear war compared to a few jihadies blowing themselfes up now and then. And u think they are on the same level. Are you stupid nigger?
>>68834846
>>68833871
B-but muh citizen militias! Muh 2nd amendment!
Oh wait, my State has tons of the US nukes. Yeah, I'd like to see the US try if we seceded
>>68824470
Even if I didn't support nuking the middle east, only an idiot declares that they won't nuke the enemy.
Deterrents don't deter if you promise not to use them.
>>68831308
The Poos in Loo would be more than happy to nuke Pakistan if they did something dumb to become public enemies.
>>68824767
>did exactly this
>see this
Oy vey
>>68834846
>>68834926
haha well meme'd, friendos.
You fine sirs happen to have one of those so-called rare Pepe's? They are hilarious.
Right guise?
>>68834966
>Middle-Eastern oil that doesn't get burned up becomes radioactive
>price of oil skyrockets
Was improving Alberta's economy part of Trump's plan
>>68835143
>can only post image macros because he's not smart enough to refute any arguments.
>>68834986
>>68832977
It would give us more targets, and show what happens to countries that let this filth in. Also, I think Egypt would be on our side in this
>>68824470
I know everyone laughs off nuking the Middle East, but it would solve a lot of problems. We wouldn't lose anything of value. We'd probably be able to salvage the oil in a few years as well.
>>68835345
Yeah, actually unironically post that you believe the western world would take military retaliation against the US if they nuked one or two strategic spots in the ME.
>>68831308
The question is why would you use a nuke agenst a low level threat like isis? They have killed under 200 persons in the western world, they are nothing. It's just a bunch of ragheads blowing themselfes up now and then. And you want to deal with this threat by killing milions make the area inhospitable and anger nearby countries and the global comunity for some shitskins that now and then blow themselfes up?
>>68835237
>Deterrents
No idiot, they're around for MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), if you actually used one against someone it would be unprecedented and disastrous.
>>68835709
Look up the word deterrent you stupid koala rape baby.
>>68835345
A) your from Australia, so you, your opinion & your ugly fucking mother can all eat shit - you have no stake in the argument. Or any argument for that matter.
B) You're a soft pussy who doesn't understand how a Muslim's brain operates. We can just hug themand they will be our friends.
C) Image Macros?
D) All that cum has fucked up your brain.
>>68835709
Depending on who you nuke.
>>68835709
>unprecedented
I love how much lefties use this word with apparently no idea what it means.
>>68835643
They wouldn't take military action against the US. They'd have massive economic sanctions and diplomatic sanctions.
The US is extremely fickle and sensitive. There could even be a civil war.
If you think Russia, China, Turkey, India, Indonesia, Brazil and Nigeria aren't hungry and wouldn't rush to fill any regional or international power vacuums left by a distracted US you're wrong.
They'll just move away from the fire like cockroaches.
>>68824767
>>68835299
>>68833444
>>68830105
>>68830512
>>68830471
>>68825396
>>68825628
>>68828231
I converted the gif just a moment ago, 4u
>>68832977
Do we really need any of those countries though? Irradiated oil still burns, right? I think we have enough nukes.
>>68824767
I love your tastes, man. Good putas too.
Good game. Good game.
>>68835662
> They have killed under 200 persons in the western world, they are nothing. It's just a bunch of ragheads blowing themselfes up now and then.
>Coming from Sweden
You seriously can't make this up.
How are you this passive against someone this intent on killing you and everything your culture and ancestors represent and stand for? Forget the terrorist attacks, those fucking savages are beheading us westerners on mass over there. Fuck them, use whatever weaponry you arbitrarily decide is more correct but let's start murdering these animals.
I thought that the only thing preventing the US of nuking the ME is that you can't nuke just one place, you'd have to nuke every arab country
because you know, not only those terrorists are everywhere, you'd have to do something about that massive retaliation. The US can't cope with two planes on two towers, literally creating a whole new age of paranoia, fear and privacy breach security measures, now picture how it would be like after another 9-11.
No. Outdated form of destruction. We have cleaner ways of blasting brown people.
>>68835785
African Americano
>>68835815
>His best attempt at an argument is just ad hominem
>>68835861
It has never been done before.
>>68836056
>numerous terrorist groups issuing death orders against the guy who nuked Israel
top kek
>>68824470
Until the idiot in the white house now,NO president ruled out the use of nuclear weapons. In fact, it was an explicit threat against ANY wmd attack.
>>68836550
>5000 nukes
Yeah that would pretty much vaporize the entire middle east
It's ultimate solution. Turn the Middle East into a glass carpark, starting with Jerusalem. Take care of the Jews and the Muslims in one fell swoop.
We only need robots to extract the oil.
Nukes will probably fuck the earth up a bit but honestly it's probably the only choice. I don't see any other way we can finally get out of this endless fucking war with Islam unless we just kill literally every person in that monster religion and the best way to do that is to shit nukes down on them.
>>68836768
I'd rather do what we're currently doing than fuck up the planet though.
>>68835885
> They'd have massive economic sanctions and diplomatic sanctions.
Like the UN doesn't stand to lose a lot more from this than the US.
>There could even be a civil war.
Good. They're needing it. Who do you think would get killed? The Leftards or the guys that actually have weapons and know how to use them?
>Turkey
>Indonesia
>Brazil
>Nigeria
Kek
>Russia
>China
>India
China is doing well enough they'd be stupid to try to take ovr the US, it's just unreasonable, they're doing too well to gamble on that. Russia might maybe, but they are too far from the US to make it practical, they'd sooner thry to get back to USSR and take over Eastern europe because they know we're pussies and the US would be too concerned with their own shit, but that's on us for being led by dickless faggots.
India is a mix of being too far away for a practical take-over, and they don't have really the firepower to do it even against a battered by inside turmoil US. And they are bitches to the West and doing such a thing would put them in bad standing with us.
>>68836768
a desert full of goat fuckers becomes a desert whitout goat fuckers
nothing of value is lost
>>68836056
>"Nations around the world are condemning the nuclear strike that we made against Israel. They are particularly upset anyone would attack a country that has no global nuclear strike capability ..."
>Israel
>a country that has no global nuclear strike capability
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Also what happens when your popularity reaches 0% and you get shadow network lockout?
>>68836347
Not really ad hominem, you hold the belief that there would be retaliatory strikes and I am reminding you that we are the USA, we have per-emptivly used nuclear weapons before & the world clapped. If we did it again against ISIS we would send a clear message to them who & what they are fucking with. Russia would give us a national holiday, China would not care. Pakistan risks suicide and North Korea couldn't even piss if it's pants were on fire. You've got no game. On top of that, may I remind you that you hail from a completely inconsequential country that has contributed nothing to the events of the world since it's embarrassing inception. That's not ad hominem, it's just a fact.
>>68836154
Yes lets murder isis but without a nuke. The first thing to do would be for the usa to stop supporting saudi arabia and turky, since they are supporting isis. And the us should stop intefering with russia that's acctually taking action agenst isis. US recently helped saudi with a deal made with russia. That made russian war planes leave syria in return for increased oil prices. And us should consider to stop funding terrorist groups in Syria. Becuse it has been show aigen and aigen that thoose weapons end up in isis hands. And the cia have also been tied to isis before the kick of in iraq.
>>68836347
Wait, are you being serious? I thought you were satirically shitposting, but this seems desperately earnest and not like my witty Ausbros at all.
I hope you're just off your game today.
>>68824470
I'll have what the Big Don is having.
Trump has learned from Machiavelli. It may not be nice and win him brownie points, but that shit doesn't matter. What does matter is that the US is a superpower and should be treated like it.
And if to get the proper treatment it must use threats, then threats shall be used.
>>68824470
absolutely, nuke the lot of them
doesn't seem too bad desu
>>68824470
>Destroying the ancient ruins like barbaric ISIS
>Being proud that you have caused irreparable damage of humanity's greatest cultural achievement: The first civilizations
The day this happens is the day I lose all faith in Trump
Russia might maybe, but they are too far from the US to make it practical, they'd sooner thry to get back to.
Alaska
Portugal you have gone full retard today go to sleep.
>>68828323
>Mfw my town gets nuked in that movie.
>>68825786
Yes, and clearly it's worked wonders on japan, but id much rather use chemical or biological WMDs on isis than a nuke
>>68837627
They'd have to mmove their whole military to the east end of Russia, traverssing basically a whole continent. Then they'd have to mobilise it through te Pacific.
Also Alaska doesn't count 'cause you can't take the US over from Alaska, there's this bit in the middle of it called Canada.
>>68834846
Fuck off Victorian cunt.
Australia is full MAGA.
>>68837126
Game over.
Luckily, you can usually survive starting nuclear war by the skin of your teeth with mass tax cuts.
You'll wanna get in the panic bunker before you get shot, though.
>>68838359
>Luckily, you can usually survive starting nuclear war by the skin of your teeth with mass tax cuts.
I wonder if this would work IRL.
>>68838465
Eh, if impeachment only happened at 0% outside of election years like in the game, sure. You usually make it through the first nuking with only 1-6% approval.
>>68824470
It's a common misconception that the president can decide if he wants to nuke someone or not.
The president only has one of several keys needed to activate actual nuclear launches. He can't just act rouge. No one is getting nuked.
>>68838718
Though, if you have high approval ratings and at least give a little warning with lots of condemning and whatnot, followed by surgical strikes, you can pull through with low double digits.
>>68825786
>QT submissive homemaking arabic traps
... Not sure if want.
>>68825595
>Radiation
It's a fucking desert. No different than our nuke testing in Nevada.
>"wildlife"
Like?
>other countries getting mad at us
If Trump does this he'd clear it with Russia and the other major nuclear armed countries first. The other non-nuke countries can fuck off.
>cleanup will be expensive
Yeah. For the Syrians. Whom we hate too.
>Loss of millions of lives that may not be part of ISIS
If they are still there they are ISIS. The secret they don't tell you is ISIS created it's State it just isn't recognized outside by the international community as such. The people living there wholeheartedly believe they live in THE Islamic State.
>Definite way of not being re-elected
Truman nuked Japan TWICE and went on to get re-elected.
Good. It is time to nuke those shitlords back into Stone Age.
>>68827561
>the nuclear option is always a major no-no
It was a major no-no when the USSR was in play and that hasn't been true for 25 years, gramps. Nukes won the US WW2, they're useful and good.
>>68829258
>You can't fight ideas with nukes.
Ideas need host bodies to spread and if you destroy them in nuclear fire it kind of makes it hard for them to keep going.
>it worked on japan.....mmm
>>68830091
"MUH HUMANITY"
lmao I want to see thousands of mudslimes vaporised instantly in an atomic explosion and there's nothing you can do to stop me
>>68830209
The biggest yield weapon in service by the US is the B83 which is 1.2 megatonnes, Hiroshima was 16 kilotonnes, so even most of the small end weapons are around Hiroshima range. The B83's radius is 1km^2 and the city perimeter of Raqqa is 2km^2 so you could technically take out more than half the entire city with a single warhead.
But you're totally right, if a nuclear strategy was in play here the standard play would absolutely not to go with a single massive mega nuke, it would be to cover the area with lots of small payloads, that would cause far far more devastation and could be done easily.
>>68831060
Realistically speaking, I would get an erection.
>>68832977
Good In the ensuing chaos we might be able to fucking take back Constantinople.
What would they actually do though? If they tried anything, they'd know their home country would be getting vaporised the next day.
>mfw all the standard nuclear logic including MAD is fucking useless now the USSR isn't real
fire a couple off boys, nobody's gonna stop you anymore
>>68824470
Yes, but only because even more Muslisms would be pissed, and the fact that they hate us and actively work to overtake/destroy us would be obvious, even to Liberals.
The only solution to ISIS, is to stop letting in the literal ticking time bombs seeded with the culture/religion/people.
>>68841498
We'd smoke em out of their.. smoke holes, heh heh. stupid turrrists.
>>68836056
thanks
>>68825185
Are you actually this fucking retarded or are you trolling?
>>68825645
>being this fucking new
desu
