‘They have to be totally destroyed’.
First of all, who exactly is ‘they’? Yes, I know you have referred to Daesh/Islamic State/ISIS, but how do you exactly define it? Do you go as far to say anybody who says they agree with what they do should be punished, or just those who have acted out on their beliefs? No matter what you define it as, you won’t be able to ‘totally’ eradicate Islamic State, because there will be people who can avoid getting caught and there of course is the next generation who already are too plagued to ever change their mind. When I was in Germany last, somebody threatened to do a mass shooting under the name of ISIS in the location where my accommodation was, but because they didn’t put this into practicality, the police didn’t attempt to even look for him after a few days and unless he’s done something else, he’s probably still a free man. I’m interested on your thoughts of this.
Also, if they go as far to use nuclear weaponry- that’s the world just about destroyed. While not every country has had ISIS threats, there are probably little to no countries that don’t have somebody who supports/funds ISIS and if you begin to get rid of the main members/nuke the Middle East, they will act out in the same way the people they’ve been funding have.
I understand that you want Putin and Trump to act out and get rid of terrorism, but as the same time, could they realistically get rid of all terrorism without killing the innocent at the same time? No is the answer, but if they don’t try and minimise the deaths, aren’t they just as bad?
“…but how do you exactly define it?..”
I have been pretty clear (surely??) that I am referring here to uniform-wearing and weapon-carrying ISIS militants who are fighting in the Middle East.
“…Also, if they go as far to use nuclear weaponry- that’s the world just about destroyed…”
I didn’t say nuclear weapons in general. I said “tactical nuclear weapons”. The distinction is hugely important! Tactical nuclear weapon - Wikipedia
In a desert war, it’s not hard to imagine scenarios where you could deploy a warhead similar to this one Davy Crockett (nuclear device) - Wikipedia without harming civilian people. You might hit a training camp, a command and control centre, or a bunch of fighters massing for an attack, without harming anyone situated more than 1 mile (and maybe much less than that) from the intended target.
Of course the US military has retired the dear old DC, but I’d be surprised in Vlad the man doesn’t have a trick like that up his sleeve.
(Anyway, I daresay even someone as mad-as-hell as big Don would think twice about nuking these bastards. I was venting because I found the video of them burning the Turkish prisoners alive to be upsetting, damn it!)
For inner-political reasons “Vlad the man” needs a long war - an Afghanistan with a victory - in Syria. Some of the most effective images on Russian news these days is of Russian soldiers handing out food/necessities to people on the street. Not going to drop any such bomb.
A tense new battle over nuclear arms erupts between Donald Trump and his staff http://wapo.st/2ik9KGS?tid=ss_tw-bottom
BBC News - Stanislav Petrov: The man who may have saved the world http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24280831
Des Ball: the man who saved the world Des Ball: the man who saved the world via @smh
I don’t put anything past donny tiny hands. That guy doesn’t know anything about anything and has the impulse control of a grease fire.
Yea… this is 100% true.
Maybe they will patch through his twitter account to Strategic Command?
Don: “We’ve got fantastic weapons, exceptional weapons. I think we’re all agreed that we should use them.”
SC: “Highest alert guys! Prepare ICBMs for imminent launch!”
Don: “We are a peaceful people, we can get along with literally anyone.”
SC: “Okay, Stand down.”
Don: “We need to bomb these people like you’ve never seen it!”
SC: “Uhm…okay cancel last order…”
Putin has weapons of mass destruction. The thin-skinned Trump is also going to have them.
If you do not assume that the end always justifies the means, you cannot contend that dropping a nuclear bomb on non-combatant local people as well as combatants is less atrocious than the brutal public execution of “prisoners of war”.