ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

NickK said:
Everyone thinks "nukes" are a single point solution.

Setting a nuke off = radioactive pollution, causing serious land damage, collateral and human damage for hundreds of years.
Click to expand...


Really? best cancel my holiday to Japan ;)

They need to sort the Islamic scum out(IS) and then start on turkey.
 
deuse said:
Really? best cancel my holiday to Japan ;)
Click to expand...

Here's why: http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/10/can-people-live-hiroshima-nagasaki-now-chernobyl/

Airburst. In addition there is no real data on the after effects in terms of cancer etc.

However my point here is that even with an airburst, the recovery after 100 years to be habitable, the event still lives on. It is still remembered as "US bombed country X".

A heretofore secret cable dated Sept. 3, 2009, was recently released by WikiLeaks. Sent to Secretary of State Clinton, it reported Japan's Vice Foreign Minister Mitoji Yabunaka telling U.S. Ambassador John Roos that "the idea of President Obama visiting Hiroshima to apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II is a 'nonstarter.'"
Click to expand...
Source: http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Arti...ks-Japan-refused-Obama-Hiroshima-Apology.aspx

So you can see it becomes part of the fabric of the country and culture.
 
NickK said:
Here's why: http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/10/can-people-live-hiroshima-nagasaki-now-chernobyl/

Airburst. In addition there is no real data on the after effects in terms of cancer etc.

However my point here is that even with an airburst, the recovery after 100 years to be habitable, the event still lives on. It is still remembered as "US bombed country X".


Source: http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Arti...ks-Japan-refused-Obama-Hiroshima-Apology.aspx

So you can see it becomes part of the fabric of the country and culture.
Click to expand...


From your own link
"Today, over 1.6 million people live and seem to be thriving in Hiroshima and Nagasaki,"
So your "human damage for hundreds of years" is a fail.

Watching the House of commons. Labour are showing themselves up.
 
Last edited:
deuse said:
From your own link
"Today, over 1.6 million people live and seem to be thriving in Hiroshima and Nagasaki,"
So your "human damage for hundreds of years" is a fail.
Click to expand...

The failure to see the holistic picture is yours.

Physical - one generation (say 50 years)
Cultural - Obama gets told to talk to the hand.

Having done business in tokyo, all our interactions were with a cultural consultancy. I remember one meeting with everyone around the table, the consultants and the interpreters through an earpiece..

A document talked about database atomic commits. This statement was red flagged and the consultant was at pains to convey the mention of "atomic" needs extremely careful handling (even though it is a known subject term).

I would expect that people would not like to habit the area in syria at least for the immediate generation. Would you habit a location after a nuclear bomb went off? How long would you suggest your kids wait before thinking about it?
 
Last edited:
I look at this in two ways. Will us bombing them make a significant impact? Do we have more or better bombs than the US, France, Russia?

In the other hand, it shows terrorists that an attack on any EU state is an attack on all of the EU and that we will stand together and strike back as a unit.
 
Moses said:
A single Tornado could carry eighteen Brimstone missiles. They're missiles which only we and Saudi have, and their specific capability mean we could have a real, meaningful impact.

http://www.thewhatandthewhy.com/why-the-uk-can-do-more-than-rearrange-the-syrian-rubble/
Click to expand...

They're HEAT weapons, suitable for anti-tank use etc. As far as we know daesh have a few hundred main battle tanks and maybe a few thousand light armoured vehicles, so they could indeed be very useful against those.

That's not to say the other countries involved don't have anti-armour missiles, that's silly.
 
awaybreaktoday said:
Anyone with an once of intelligence knows that the UK bombing Syria has no chance in hell of working unless they use battlefield nukes on ISIS strong holds, but that has no chance in hell of happening as the UK government is too weak.
Click to expand...

If North Korea dropped a nuke on London, do you the UK population would just submit to them?

Or would anti NK sentiment grow and we'd hit back harder than they hit us?
 
awaybreaktoday said:
They should be using these on ISIS cells in Europe. I have not seen these being successful in IRAQ, How long have we been bombing targets in Iraq now?
Click to expand...

Yea, dropping bombs on the major cities in Europe....what a stellar idea! Let's do ISIS's job for them :D

I think you need to put the keyboard down now and go find your medication, you've missed a dose or two these last couple of days
 
Moses said:
Their precision, ability to hit fast moving targets, smaller shrapnel field, etc.
Click to expand...

I expect the salesmen overemphasised smaller shrapnel field and the potentially limiting civilian casualties bit :p

And jeez, £100,000 a pop....going to be an expensive business knocking them off 1 at a time :D
 
Buddy said:
I
To be honest if you honestly think wahhabi Saudi has nothing to do with wahhabi Isis because you feel a responsibility to defend uks alliance with them - you're head is in said sand
Click to expand...

ISIS are attacking Saudi though...

Saudi just started spending a lot of money on defending thier border against isis.
 
awaybreaktoday said:
Anyone with an once of intelligence knows that the UK bombing Syria has no chance in hell of working unless they use battlefield nukes on ISIS strong holds, but that has no chance in hell of happening as the UK government is too weak.
Click to expand...

why?

we didn't need nukes to destroy entire cities and major well made and engineered bunker complexes in ww2 with much inferior weapons.

but you think you need nukes to destroy crudley dug tunels and civilian buildings?

nukes would be a silly idea also smallest thing we got is over twice the power of Hiroshima though.
 
amigafan2003 said:
If North Korea dropped a nuke on London, do you the UK population would just submit to them?

Or would anti NK sentiment grow and we'd hit back harder than they hit us?
Click to expand...

Utter nonsense, ISIS is not a nation state with the resources that go with being a nation state.

ISIS believes that the forces bombing are weak in their will and their ideology. They see us as utter cowards, and they are right we are cowards, we simply do not have the will or strength to defeat their ideology.

Let me put this in a different prospective for you all. The might of the USSR army could not defeat Al-Qaeda ("the Mujahideen") during the Afghan war. What makes you all think that a few planes in the sky will defeat a group with a far more stronger will and more ruthless ideology than Al-Qaeda, also they have far greater support, far larger networks, and a far greater amount of wealth than Al-Qaeda ever did.


And you lot just want to send a few planes with bombs in. Get real people, these ISIS people have a far greater will and purpose than any western government.


P.S. And a man who is willing to blow himself up as a weapon cannot be defeated.
 
Last edited:
Brimstone is a means to an end - neutralisation of targets. The more accurate the more economical the process is. The US like it because it works and is a bit better than their current offerings (without paying development money - they can get it "now).

It's new, it's lower cost than some of the alternatives, battle proven and "being in war" means it gets defence sales. Sad fact that war = military PR. However the military action is a means to and end.

The US want us in, because they know they can rely on us to achieve an objective leaving them to be able to focus on their real objective.
 
awaybreaktoday said:
Utter nonsense, ISIS is not a nation state with the resources that go with being a nation state.

ISIS believes that the forces bombing are weak in their will and their ideology. They see us as utter cowards, and they are right we are cowards, we simply do not have the will or strength to defeat their ideology.

Let me put this in a different prospective for you all. The might of the USSR army could not defeat Al-Qaeda ("the Mujahideen") during the Afghan war. What makes you all think that a few planes in the sky will defeat a group with a far more stronger will and more ruthless ideology than Al-Qaeda, also they have far greater support, far larger networks, and a far greater amount of wealth than Al-Qaeda ever did.


And you lot just want to send a few planes with bombs in. Get real people, these ISIS people have a far greater will and purpose than any western government.

.
Click to expand...


Tefal said:
why?

we didn't need nukes to destroy entire cities and major well made and engineered bunker complexes in ww2 with much inferior weapons.

but you think you need nukes to destroy crudley dug tunels and civilian buildings?

nukes would be a silly idea also smallest thing we got is over twice the power of Hiroshima though.
Click to expand...



P.S. And a man who is willing to blow himself up as a weapon cannot be defeated
Click to expand...

sure he can, a bullet costing less than a dollar does it nicely from a distance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom