[QUOTE=Xystus234;46162698]words[/QUOTE]
I already know everything you've just posted. My point was that the conclusions you've drawn from the information are borderline schizophrenic.
1. The state of total war in Japan was not unique to the Pacific front. The timing of the nuclear bomb's arrival (coupled with mounting war fatigue and a ripe selection of strategic targets) is what led to its use. ISIS does not have a manufacturing or economic base, and no portion of their massively disorganized forces would require the deployment of any non-conventional weapon.
2. The nuclear arsenal of the United States exists to prevent a discrepancy of power with other nuclear-armed states. The use of a nuclear weapon by terrorists would trigger a massive conventional response, but the US' weapons themselves would not lend any kind of advantage at any stage against such a disorganized force. Furthermore, nuclear weapons would be completely inappropriate for any actual targets in the middle east.
3. The use of nuclear weapons by the United States would set a precedent completely contrary to the actual political goals of the United States, by encouraging use of nuclear force in small-scale operations - which would grant incredible leverage to the political opponents of the US and NATO.
Nowhere did anyone imply that ISIS would not want to use a nuclear weapon against the United States, and your assertion that Imperial Japan and ISIS are similar enemies is intellectually dishonest and dismissible.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;46162745]I already know everything you've just posted. My point was that the conclusions you've drawn from the information are borderline schizophrenic.
[/QUOTE]
Insulting me isn't going to help anything but your already over-inflated ego.
[quote]
1. The state of total war in Japan was not unique to the Pacific front. The timing of the nuclear bomb's arrival (coupled with mounting war fatigue and a ripe selection of strategic targets) is what led to its use. ISIS does not have a manufacturing or economic base, and no portion of their massively disorganized forces would require the deployment of any non-conventional weapon. [/quote]
Every source that has ever been written from that time clearly states that the reason that we nuked japan was we were going to be inflicted with massive casualties should we follow with an invasion of mainland japan, due to the inability of the Japanese to surrender. Most of the posts in here are right to a certain degree. But to say that we simply just didn't want to invade is ridiculous. Didn't you mention something else earlier though?
[quote]
2. The nuclear arsenal of the United States exists to prevent a discrepancy of power with other nuclear-armed states. The use of a nuclear weapon by terrorists would trigger a massive conventional response, but the US' weapons themselves would not lend any kind of advantage at any stage against such a disorganized force. Furthermore, nuclear weapons would be completely inappropriate for any actual targets in the middle east.
[/quote]
I concur. At the present time.
[quote]
3. The use of nuclear weapons by the United States would set a precedent completely contrary to the actual political goals of the United States, by encouraging use of nuclear force in small-scale operations - which would grant incredible leverage to Russia, China, Pakistan, and similar states.
[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]
Nowhere did anyone imply that ISIS would not want to use a nuclear weapon against the United States, and your assertion that Imperial Japan and ISIS are similar enemies is intellectually dishonest and dismissible.[/quote]
I'm not going to waste time writing a long response to you. My point was that ISIS could get to the point where they become that level of threat. But you've ignored every aspect of that argument anyway so that's a waste of time to even point out why. You aren't seeing the long term potential of the threat. You're thinking about at the present.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;46162888]ya i mean pretending to fuck is basically the second step from pretending to kiss[/QUOTE]
You know when you're a spy it gives you a really good advantage if people DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A FUCKING SPY.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46162725]When the us used nukes in ww2 it was then testing their new weapon on human beings. The bombs we have now are more powerful and we know the consequences, more importantly lots of people have got them.
Is don't have the resources or facilities to build nukes and even when/if they ever do making a missile to launch a nuke it's a big job and Israel will have unleashed literal hordes of mossad and whatever other spys they use to find the bomb which realistically would only be used against them.
It's inconsequential though, is won't get a nuke. This is just scare mongering against is and less directly against Iran 'huh! If Iran can't be trusted to keep their nuclear secrets under wrap they shouldn't be trusted to have them at all!'
Dirty bomb is a different matter but if they wanted one of those they would already have one.[/QUOTE]
Well thank god for that, I guess.
If they use those i can guarantee that the Syrian Desert will become even more uninhabitated
[QUOTE=Falubii;46162210]First of all ISIS won't be able to come near any nukes. Secondly even if they did, there would be no reason to nuke them. There's not some big spot with all of ISIS in some nuclear blast yield sized area.[/QUOTE]
Remember best korea
and if they do get nuclear weapons anyway they don't even have math to calculate the bloody trajectories, they might as well blow themselves off :v:
[QUOTE=rewkasu;46167592]Remember best korea[/QUOTE]
Yes, their nukes are a joke and the last one they detonated fizzled out.
[QUOTE=Xystus234;46162805]
I'm not going to waste time writing a long response to you. My point was that ISIS could get to the point where they become that level of threat. But you've ignored every aspect of that argument anyway so that's a waste of time to even point out why. You aren't seeing the long term potential of the threat. You're thinking about at the present.[/QUOTE]
I'd hardly consider ISIS having captured an airfield proof that they'll somehow manage to establish a base of manufacturing or operations that conventional arms couldn't take care of. All it would take would be a single bombing run by a B1/B2 with conventional munitions and the airfield would be completely unusable. If they manage to capture some large scale manufacturing facilities, a single bombing run by a B1/B2, or some guided munitions launched from some F15 or pretty much any other combat aircraft in the US arsenal including unmanned drones and it's gone. If they capture any military bases within Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, or Iran, it's the same story. I don't see what they could possibly manage to do that would require a nuclear strike when standard US airstrikes are already forcing them to hide among civilians.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.