Let's talk about the nukes

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If ISIS got momentum and significant territory I bet the option of small tactical nukes would be considered.

Stuck in a time warp?

[Papewaio]

Stuck in a time warp?

No, I don't believe that any option is off the table if:
a) It's in the armory
b) There is a serious enough situation to warrant it
c) Drums of war prevail

So there are tactical nukes.
If ISIS next terrorist attack is an order of magnitude larger then 9/11 and they make significant headway towards a Caliphate or they are at Israel's doorstep.

Then we will see an escalation of weapons used.

If ISIS still maintains momentum then heavier and heavier weapons would be brought in until nukes are used. Only UN veto ISIS hasn't attacked is China. Do that and the entire security council will not veto an attack.

Likelyhood bugger all. Has the nuclear weapon age ended probably, but they said that about history too...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, I don't believe that any option is off the table if:
a) It's in the armory
b) There is a serious enough situation to warrant it
c) Drums of war prevail

So there are tactical nukes.
If ISIS next terrorist attack is an order of magnitude larger then 9/11 and they make significant headway towards a Caliphate or they are at Israel's doorstep.

Then we will see an escalation of weapons used.

If ISIS still maintains momentum then heavier and heavier weapons would be brought in until nukes are used. Only UN veto ISIS hasn't attacked is China. Do that and the entire security council will not veto an attack.

Likelyhood bugger all. Has the nuclear weapon age ended probably, but they said that about history too...

Maybe you didn't understand my point - there's no conceivable scenario where a tactical nuke would be wiser, cheaper, or more effective against IS than a conventional alternative.

A lot of tactical Nukes were designed to stop a massed Russian tank advance where NATO armour would be overwhelmed by Russian numbers. In that scenario tactical nukes were a way of "thinning out" the Russian divisions because you could fire multiple rounds quickly and each shell would knock out at least one tank.

In reality we learned in the 1980's after Russia opened up that our gunnery was so much better, and our manual loaders so much faster than their auto-loaders, that we didn't need to "thin them out", because our weapons and crews were significantly better.

IS's armour situation is even more asymmetrical. Assuming IS had 30 tanks you could probably drop a British tank squadron in (16 tanks) and just wipe the floor with them without losing a man. Their crews will be of poor quality, their hulls aren't proof against our shells and their guns can't puncture Chobbham armour because they're so out of date.

I honestly DON'T think anyone would consider using tactical nukes against them, it's so obviously a pointless waste of money.

[Husar]

IS's armour situation is even more asymmetrical. Assuming IS had 30 tanks you could probably drop a British tank squadron in (16 tanks) and just wipe the floor with them without losing a man. Their crews will be of poor quality, their hulls aren't proof against our shells and their guns can't puncture Chobbham armour because they're so out of date.

That's a pretty mean comment to make about Abrams tanks, especially considering they got your Chobham, too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB-X4BNAtu4

I agree though that tactical nukes seem like a bit much. You take out a "Chobham tank" using a missile and there are plenty of those in the US arsenal, they may already have dropped plenty of LGBs onto them, that also does the trick.

[Hooahguy]

Be aware though the Abrams tanks that they captured are the export version which has much inferior armor. The export versions are given inferior armor for this very reason. The biggest proof of this is that the US version of the Abrams can survive a direct ATGM hit while the export version gets blown to smithereens as has been shown in many videos put out by IS.

[Papewaio]

I'm not talking about using them on armour.

I'm talking 30k plus dead due to a terrorist attack on a large city think sarin or dirty bomb. With more to come.

Would the present powers do a Dresden and would they use waves of bombers and drones with conventional fire bombs or cut the chase and use Hiroshima scale nukes to stop ISIS?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's a pretty mean comment to make about Abrams tanks, especially considering they got your Chobham, too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB-X4BNAtu4

I agree though that tactical nukes seem like a bit much. You take out a "Chobham tank" using a missile and there are plenty of those in the US arsenal, they may already have dropped plenty of LGBs onto them, that also does the trick.

Well, bear in mind that even the American Abrams has inferior armour than what's on the modern British tanks. Abrams armour is the same on that used on British tanks 30 years ago whilst the armour on modern British tanks is only about 20 years old.

I'm not talking about using them on armour.

I'm talking 30k plus dead due to a terrorist attack on a large city think sarin or dirty bomb. With more to come.

Would the present powers do a Dresden and would they use waves of bombers and drones with conventional fire bombs or cut the chase and use Hiroshima scale nukes to stop ISIS?

This is, per definition, the strategic use of nuclear weapons. You would not use the tactical nukes for this sort of thing, you would use a single smaller strategic nuke to flatten the city.

In a scenario where IS has access to weapons of mass destruction (and use them) then the US etc. would consider the use of strategic nuclear weapons as a retaliatory move. However, it's highly unlikely they would do it because then you lose the moral high ground, having declared nuclear war on someone.

I already made this point in post #4, so you clearly didn't read it and just repeated yourself hoping to incite a different answer.

-1 Internets.

[Husar]

Be aware though the Abrams tanks that they captured are the export version which has much inferior armor. The export versions are given inferior armor for this very reason. The biggest proof of this is that the US version of the Abrams can survive a direct ATGM hit while the export version gets blown to smithereens as has been shown in many videos put out by IS.

I thought the Iraqi government were your best buddies. I almost thought they may have a weaker version, but to have it that weak seems a bit much. Wasn't Chobham replaced with Dor(k)chester anyway? As for surviving an ATGM hit, depends on the angle and the ATGM I guess, I don't think they have lots of deleted Plutoniumham or so on the roof yet for example.

Either way, planes have plenty of ways to dispose of tanks, a 250 or 500kg steel container full of explosives also works as I mentioned, it's what they used a lot in Libya I assume since I vividly remember how the French and British ran out of the guided ones and couldn't attack tanks anymore because the unguided ones tend to miss moving targets too much I guess.

Mini nukes are more for taking out entire platoons or even whatever is above a platoon.

[Montmorency]

Pape, please: nukes are psychological weapons.

Using nukes on ISIS would be as effective at stopping them as would using a Halloween mask on a toddler.

[Hooahguy]

I thought the Iraqi government were your best buddies. I almost thought they may have a weaker version, but to have it that weak seems a bit much.

Ha! I'm not sure on the specifics but from what I have heard, the export versions of the Abrams has no sort of advanced armor at all. From what I've been told, the exports just have plain old steel armor. For this exact reason, the US doesn't want to have to fight captured armor or even worse, have the enemy reverse engineer the armor.