What if president trump nukes ISIS? Certainly ISIS can't respond in turn. Would anyone else step in to counter-nuke on ISIS's behalf? Even if Iran had nukes, they couldn't deliver them to the US. Russia my defend Syria, but what if we nuke Iraq?
The reason we don't use nukes is because a nuclear winter would destroy everything. But what if your enemy can't nuke you back? You could use like 10 and end any war.
Iran is fighting IS fool
Its pakistan you have to worry about
>>69285203
too many civilians in the crossfire for him to get away with it. everyone would cry genocide.
>>69285203
I think of this too.
The UN would go mad and Liberal hippies would riot for who knows what.
>>69285203
>The reason we don't use nukes is because a nuclear winter would destroy everything.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6M6Iq9wyTE
The planet can endure a surprising amount of nuking.
>>69285353
Would Pakistan respond? We could let India take care of them with nukes. A full exchange between those two would only be what? A few dozen? Not enough for winter.
>>69285473
>The planet can endure a surprising amount of nuking.
This.
They will only nuke cities anyway. At this point who gives a fuck. Western cities are the places being over run by degeneracy and immigrants.
>>69285203
There's no "nuking ISIS", they're too spread out. Even if we nuked the entire Middle East, there are better ways to go about it. If Assad is pushing them back and they're losing already, pretty sure we could easily pull a Gulf War and bomb them for a few weeks then send in the Marines to wipe em out extremely easily.
Do you even fucking think about the people who aren't even related to ISIS who would die if something like that happened?
nuclear winter is a myth
when people talk about nukes they spout bullshit
>>69285763
Yes. Nuke em all. Future terrorists.
>>69285763
You can go count the dead, if you want. They won't be picking up rifles anytime soon, so... I'll agree that that would be an unfortunate consequence.
>>69286186
america was founded by terrorists m8. muslim terrorists need to get btfo though
>>69285763
Only way to kill a Hydra is to cut off the heads and burn the necks so they cant grow back. Collateral damage is the burning part
>>69286761
>Collateral damage is the burning part
Respectfully, no. Collateral damage is the fiery death of all living things in the vicinity, because you used a nuclear warhead for cauterising.
The best way to fight ISIS is to leave them alone, and deport all muslims back to whateveristan. Let the muslims kill each other; it's far more painful for them, and way more wicked, than a nuclear blast.
>>69285203
>ISIS
>having anything to do with Iran
burger education
Governments already get enough shit for using conventional airstrikes. Escalating a fight would only empower more resistance, may even lead to an uprising in America itself with a military coup. Doesn't matter if they don't support IS, using nukes will be seen as incredibly reckless and would even radicalise others who don't have anything to do with extremist groups
>>69285763
Raqqa is just ISIS sympathizers and the ones who leave are ISIS sympathizers that bottle it and want to support them without risk to themselves
they should all get melted
