Let's talk about the nukes

[Kralizec]

Pretty sure Papewaio is talking about French nuclear tests during Chirac's presidency. That was a big thing when I was growing up if I recall correctly.

I was going to post something like "There's no double standard, there are no European countries in the pacific" but I guess that it would be the wrong subject to joke about.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Pretty sure Papewaio is talking about French nuclear tests during Chirac's presidency. That was a big thing when I was growing up if I recall correctly.

I was going to post something like "There's no double standard, there are no European countries in the pacific" but I guess that it would be the wrong subject to joke about.

Well, as I'm not French and they weren't set off in Australia I feel I can stand by my original point.

Anyway - this still doesn't excuse Pape's willful confusion of tactical and strategic use of nukes or his fantastical claim that we might use them against IS.

[Papewaio]

It was your assumption that we need to use strategic nukes against a non nuclear power.

Imagine this scenario.

Al Qaeda mk III / ISIS mk II... You can't kill a concept only its current adherents.

Kill 30,000 plus in the next terrorist attack. Not unimaginable just a matter of a twin tower type attack hitting whilst it is fully occupied.
Add in a few large massacres of 200,000 plus civilians.
Then conventional bombing being not effective enough.
Then estimates of soldier deaths to contain the menace at over a million.

In other words Japan circa WWII.

If it was justified then, why not now? Or was it a war crime then and the ROI was much more expensive too given the cost per war head has plummeted.

=][=

BTW France it is and the French Territories in the Pacific are part of France. So yes you can have EU countries land in the pacific. However as seen in this thread no EU country would test the bombs in Europe. God bless hypocrisy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It was your assumption that we need to use strategic nukes against a non nuclear power.

Imagine this scenario.

Al Qaeda mk III / ISIS mk II... You can't kill a concept only its current adherents.

Kill 30,000 plus in the next terrorist attack. Not unimaginable just a matter of a twin tower type attack hitting whilst it is fully occupied.
Add in a few large massacres of 200,000 plus civilians.
Then conventional bombing being not effective enough.
Then estimates of soldier deaths to contain the menace at over a million.

In other words Japan circa WWII.

If it was justified then, why not now? Or was it a war crime then and the ROI was much more expensive too given the cost per war head has plummeted.

=][=

BTW France it is and the French Territories in the Pacific are part of France. So yes you can have EU countries land in the pacific. However as seen in this thread no EU country would test the bombs in Europe. God bless hypocrisy.

The Japanese bombings were strategic - two bombs to end the war - a demonstration that the Allies could literally destroy Japan.

In the case of a punitive strike to "defeat IS" that would also be a strategic strike, and it wouldn't work anyway - it would just turn their Jihad into a SuperJihad.

[Myth]

It was your assumption that we need to use strategic nukes against a non nuclear power.

Imagine this scenario.

Al Qaeda mk III / ISIS mk II... You can't kill a concept only its current adherents.

Kill 30,000 plus in the next terrorist attack. Not unimaginable just a matter of a twin tower type attack hitting whilst it is fully occupied.
Add in a few large massacres of 200,000 plus civilians.
Then conventional bombing being not effective enough.
Then estimates of soldier deaths to contain the menace at over a million.

In other words Japan circa WWII.

If it was justified then, why not now? Or was it a war crime then and the ROI was much more expensive too given the cost per war head has plummeted.

=][=

BTW France it is and the French Territories in the Pacific are part of France. So yes you can have EU countries land in the pacific. However as seen in this thread no EU country would test the bombs in Europe. God bless hypocrisy.

And what do you nuke then mate? Baghdad? Aleppo? No? Then you are left with such hot targets as: tent camps, oil rigs, desert, cave complexes, goat herds, mud huts and similar prime Mesopotamian infrastructure. You're not fighting a country, you're fighting essentially a well trained and ruthless militia that lives amongst throngs of regular civilians.

[Slyspy]

Mecca? Riyadh? Nothing sounds like that great of an idea tbh.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Mecca? Riyadh? Nothing sounds like that great of an idea tbh.

If we bomb Mecca how am I supposed to lead the Romano-Templars in taking the city?

Clear flaw of planning there.

But - somewhat more seriously - bombing Mecca would be of little moment even were you to use nukes to try to flatten it. What we know of Nukes suggests they aren't actually all that effective at blowing up stone buildings, so you'd flatten bit of Mecca, irradiate it and probably damage but not destroy the Grand Mosque.

On the other hand, taking Mecca without bombing it (assuming we were actually at war with Saudi Arabia) would be infinitely preferable. Nothing says "we are winning and not arseholes" like taking an important religious centre without first flattening.

Although, yeah, if you want to enrage all Muslims then, please, bomb Mecca.

*walks off in disgust.*

[Husar]