Naturally, [nukes are] not necessary when fighting terrorists and, I hope, will never be needed"

Dropping a nuke in Syria or anywhere near that area would be a diplomatic nightmare. You are dropping the world's most powerful weapon onto the Holy Lands...

[QUOTE=Zombie_2371;49289503]The fact that he doesnt think it necessary means that he concidered the idea of using them.[/QUOTE] Did you watch the interview at all or you're just responding to the headline?

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49286399]yea he knows how to get shit done. inhumane, despicable shit that no sane human being should support, specifically.[/QUOTE] Sounds like our world leaders in the west who have contributed destabilization of the entire middle east. They fit pretty well together, I do say!

[QUOTE=Zombie_2371;49289503]The fact that he doesnt think it necessary means that he concidered the idea of using them.[/QUOTE] Keep in mind the type of nuke we're talking about here. These are meant to be mounted on cruise missiles. You don't mount strategic nuclear weapons, the kind used to obliterate cities, on cruise missiles. Cruise missiles are meant to mount tactical and operational level nukes - they're meant to be used against enemy facilities and armored formations. Their use in warfare is usually considered a gray area, so taking their usage into consideration isn't something I'd call particularly reprehensible.

There's nothing a tactical nuclear weapon can do that can't be accomplished with a massive conventional bombardment, which greatly saves the cost and fallout (both literal and political) of using a nuclear device.

[QUOTE=AtomicWaffle;49289841]There's nothing a tactical nuclear weapon can do that can't be accomplished with a massive conventional bombardment, which greatly saves the cost and fallout (both literal and political) of using a nuclear device.[/QUOTE] They were intended for use against Soviet armor formations in Germany. Those happen to be difficult to attack with air assets thanks to AAA, and artillery barely does shit. That, combined with the immediate threat they posed to anyone in their path, is why we developed them in the first place, separate from strategic-level nukes. They're a quick and dirty way of taking out large numbers of tanks, a desperation move. So yeah, they do have a use that conventional weapons can't match. I'm not saying we should use them. Just the opposite. Even small nukes are incredibly destructive, and risk producing unacceptable civilian casualties. I'm only saying that they have a use, and that there is nothing wrong with governments taking their usage into consideration.

I should probably amend that to "they don't have a use in the current theatre of war." I can't see a nukable ISIS target that wouldn't inevitably result in obscene civilian casualties.

Edited the title to make it less misleading. You are taking "sensationalist headlines" a little too literally, mate.

Looks like just a bit of political dick-waving, reminding ISIS that they have nukes and they'll actually have to scale back attacks to prevent [I]too much[/I] damage. [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49291131]Edited the title to make it less misleading. You are taking "sensationalist headlines" a little too literally, mate.[/QUOTE] What was the original title, for those of us who were late to the party?

isn't it universal law that the moment a country uses nukes for real they will get nuked to shit in response?

[QUOTE=J!NX;49291497]isn't it universal law that the moment a country uses nukes for real they will get nuked to shit in response?[/QUOTE] I think the circumstances are different when the intended target is internationally despised scumbags who don't have their own nukes, but it's possible that Iran could do something, considering they're close and have nukes. At the very least, I'd say the other global superpowers would do some human rights violation trials or something to that effect.

how about we don't use nukes offensively at all

Well, at least we know he's not [B][U]completely[/U][/B] stupid.

[QUOTE=J!NX;49291497]isn't it universal law that the moment a country uses nukes for real they will get nuked to shit in response?[/QUOTE] Not necessarily. It's commonly understood that if an ICBM is launched in the direction of another world power, that nuclear power will retaliate and cause a domino effect that leads to world destruction, but I could theoretically see Russia successfully using tactical nuclear devices in the middle east without nuclear retaliation. Granted doing so WOULD likely lead to a nuclear war, if only because of how strong the backlash would be for using nuclear weapons in warfare, due to it being such a dangerous precedent. edit: apparently there was another page, ninja'd I guess.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49291131]Edited the title to make it less misleading. You are taking "sensationalist headlines" a little too literally, mate.[/QUOTE] it was literally the exact title of the RT news, i rarely change them.

You know you live in a very strange world indeed when you trust the Russian leader more than your own :v:

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;49291672]it was literally the exact title of the RT news, i rarely change them.[/QUOTE] Isn't RT also known for being pretty sensationalist? At any rate, it's not like I'm banning you for it. No harm done.

[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;49291489]Looks like just a bit of political dick-waving, reminding ISIS that they have nukes and they'll actually have to scale back attacks to prevent [I]too much[/I] damage. What was the original title, for those of us who were late to the party?[/QUOTE] [quote]‘Hopefully, no nukes will be needed’ against ISIS - Putin[/quote]

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;49285134]it seems you don't quite get the implications.[/QUOTE] Well the implication is that ISIS is beyond the traditional terrorist group as they're slowly turning into a defacto state.

[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;49291515]I think the circumstances are different when the intended target is internationally despised scumbags who don't have their own nukes, but it's possible that Iran could do something, considering they're close and have nukes. At the very least, I'd say the other global superpowers would do some human rights violation trials or something to that effect.[/QUOTE] ISIS are internationally despised scumbags, but the territories they control are full of innocent people being forced to live under their rule. Bringing any wide area explosive in is going to come with an unacceptably high number of civilian deaths.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49293792]ISIS are internationally despised scumbags, but the territories they control are full of innocent people being forced to live under their rule. Bringing any wide area explosive in is going to come with an unacceptably high number of civilian deaths.[/QUOTE] I thought I was implying that in my first post but I guess I wasn't really clear. The "killing millions of innocent people" thing wouldn't go over well, but I don't think that'll lead to an actual nuclear war. It would be roughly the same thing that the US did in 1945, used as an arguably last resort to end a war, then the decision would be condemned and debated for decades to come. It's not something that should happen, but that's probably how it [I]would[/I] happen