Should America nuke the Middle East?

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

WinePusher
Scholar
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 2:57 am

Should America nuke the Middle East?

Post #1

Post by WinePusher »

Nuking Japan effectively ended WWII. A major reason why America decided to nuke Japan was that the Japanese, at the time, suffered from the same type of suicide bombing martyr"ism" that the Muslims currently suffer from.

People still continue to debate the pros and cons and dropping Nukes on Japan, and whether it was the right way to end WWII. Obviously nuclear weaponry is an affront to humanity, and I would prefer a world where nukes didn't exist, and I do support nuclear disarmament campaigns.

However, Muslim terrorism isn't going away. Nothing the west is doing seems to be working. If the use of nuclear weapons was able to end WWII, would it be able to end Muslim terrorism?

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Should America nuke the Middle East?

Post #2

Post by Divine Insight »

WinePusher wrote: However, Muslim terrorism isn't going away. Nothing the west is doing seems to be working. If the use of nuclear weapons was able to end WWII, would it be able to end Muslim terrorism?
Fire power isn't the problem. The USA already has far more than enough conventional weapons to wipe out every member of every terrorist group on the earth without even the need to resort to nukes.

The problem is getting all the terrorists to stand together in one spot and identify themselves so we can blow them up without hurting anyone else. :D

I mean, where exactly do you think we could drop a nuke that would kill all the terrorists and not harm any innocent civilians?

Clearly nuclear weapons are totally useless against terrorists. They could even use nuclear weapons against us and we still couldn't retaliate with nukes because we wouldn't know where to drop them where they would only kill terrorists and not harm anyone else. In fact, such a location most likely doesn't even exist since terrorists typically operate out of highly populated areas where the vast majority of people have nothing to do with the terrorists.

So nukes will never be the answer to terrorism.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

WinePusher
Scholar
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 2:57 am

Re: Should America nuke the Middle East?

Post #3

Post by WinePusher »

Divine Insight wrote:
WinePusher wrote: However, Muslim terrorism isn't going away. Nothing the west is doing seems to be working. If the use of nuclear weapons was able to end WWII, would it be able to end Muslim terrorism?
Fire power isn't the problem. The USA already has far more than enough conventional weapons to wipe out every member of every terrorist group on the earth without even the need to resort to nukes.

The problem is getting all the terrorists to stand together in one spot and identify themselves so we can blow them up without hurting anyone else. :D

I mean, where exactly do you think we could drop a nuke that would kill all the terrorists and not harm any innocent civilians?
You make a lot of good points, but the same things could be said about WWII. Idk, maybe some WWII expert can help shed some light on this.

The US decided to nuke Japan after Germany had been defeated, and after the Japanese ceased to be a viable threat. Japanese expansion throughout southeast Asia had been contained by the time we decided to drop nukes. The only thing Japan was doing at the time was engaging in suicide terrorism, just as today's Muslims are.
Divine Insight wrote:Clearly nuclear weapons are totally useless against terrorists. They could even use nuclear weapons against us and we still couldn't retaliate with nukes because we wouldn't know where to drop them where they would only kill terrorists and not harm anyone else. In fact, such a location most likely doesn't even exist since terrorists typically operate out of highly populated areas where the vast majority of people have nothing to do with the terrorists.
Well, I mean we do know where several ISIS strongholds are, ie Raqqa, and I'm sure the military would be able to identify even more ISIS hot spots in the Middle East.
Divine Insight wrote:So nukes will never be the answer to terrorism.
Maybe, maybe not. Honestly, I think that it would severely limit the scope of terrorism, however it would open up a whole new can of worms .

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Should America nuke the Middle East?

Post #4

Post by Divine Insight »

WinePusher wrote: The US decided to nuke Japan after Germany had been defeated, and after the Japanese ceased to be a viable threat. Japanese expansion throughout southeast Asia had been contained by the time we decided to drop nukes. The only thing Japan was doing at the time was engaging in suicide terrorism, just as today's Muslims are.
What you have just said here is a false accusation against the Japanese. They were not "terrorists". Just because patriotic soldiers are willing to give their life for their country in a war against another nation does not make them "terrorists".

The Japanese did not send suicide bombers to kill innocent civilians. What they did was sense soldiers to attack military targets. So for you to refer to them as "terrorists" is a grossly false accusation.

In fact, the USA dropping nuclear bombs on entire Japanese cities killing thousands, or 10 of thousands, of innocent civilians was the greatest act of terrorism ever committed on planet earth.

So the USA currently holds the prize for being the most deadly terrorists in all of history.

I personally think it's extremely shameful and wrong of you to claim that Japanese soldiers were "terrorists" simply because they carried out one-way military missions. At least they weren't bombing civilians.
WinePusher wrote:
Divine Insight wrote:Clearly nuclear weapons are totally useless against terrorists. They could even use nuclear weapons against us and we still couldn't retaliate with nukes because we wouldn't know where to drop them where they would only kill terrorists and not harm anyone else. In fact, such a location most likely doesn't even exist since terrorists typically operate out of highly populated areas where the vast majority of people have nothing to do with the terrorists.
Well, I mean we do know where several ISIS strongholds are, ie Raqqa, and I'm sure the military would be able to identify even more ISIS hot spots in the Middle East.
And as I have said, conventional weapons are already more than powerful enough to carry out that task. If we aren't already bombing them there must be other reasons. It's certainly not because we don't have the military power to do it without using nukes.
WinePusher wrote:
Divine Insight wrote:So nukes will never be the answer to terrorism.
Maybe, maybe not. Honestly, I think that it would severely limit the scope of terrorism, however it would open up a whole new can of worms .
I personally don't think a military solution will ever solve the problem of terrorism. In fact, attempting to solve it with military action will only make it worse.

This is why it's a shame Hillary didn't become president of the USA. She had the right ideas for how to solve the problem of terrorism. Trump has already contributed to making terrorism worse and will continue to do so. If he thinks the solution to terrorism is to kill all the terrorists he's not thinking at all. That would be like pouring gasoline on a fire in the hopes of putting it out.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

WinePusher
Scholar
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 2:57 am

Re: Should America nuke the Middle East?

Post #5

Post by WinePusher »

Divine Insight wrote:
WinePusher wrote: The US decided to nuke Japan after Germany had been defeated, and after the Japanese ceased to be a viable threat. Japanese expansion throughout southeast Asia had been contained by the time we decided to drop nukes. The only thing Japan was doing at the time was engaging in suicide terrorism, just as today's Muslims are.
What you have just said here is a false accusation against the Japanese. They were not "terrorists". Just because patriotic soldiers are willing to give their life for their country in a war against another nation does not make them "terrorists".

The Japanese did not send suicide bombers to kill innocent civilians. What they did was sense soldiers to attack military targets. So for you to refer to them as "terrorists" is a grossly false accusation.

In fact, the USA dropping nuclear bombs on entire Japanese cities killing thousands, or 10 of thousands, of innocent civilians was the greatest act of terrorism ever committed on planet earth.

So the USA currently holds the prize for being the most deadly terrorists in all of history.

I personally think it's extremely shameful and wrong of you to claim that Japanese soldiers were "terrorists" simply because they carried out one-way military missions. At least they weren't bombing civilians.
I think your analysis is partly right and partly wrong. Yes, describing Japanese kamikaze pilots as "terrorists" is a bit of a misnomer on my part since they were not targeting civilians. On the other hand, the atrocities committed by the Japanese in China and southeast Asia were as equally horrific as the holocaust. It's very clear that prior to nuking Japan, the Japanese were completely unwilling to negotiate a surrender. In fact, the war would have likely been exacerbated due to the Soviet Union entering the fray.
WinePusher wrote:Well, I mean we do know where several ISIS strongholds are, ie Raqqa, and I'm sure the military would be able to identify even more ISIS hot spots in the Middle East.
Divine Insight wrote:And as I have said, conventional weapons are already more than powerful enough to carry out that task. If we aren't already bombing them there must be other reasons. It's certainly not because we don't have the military power to do it without using nukes.
How long have we been bombing them? Over a decade. Trump recently dropped the largest non atomic bomb on them, and yet terrorism is still spreading. You're right, either we can conclude that bombing them isn't ever going to work and a military solution not viable, or we can conclude that our bombings need to be ramped up.

But let's go with what you said. Let's say we pull out every single NATO soldier out of the Middle East and we cease bombing campaigns. Do you really think that this would prevent the growth of terrorism? Do you think that it would prevent them from trying to blow up the west?
Divine Insight wrote:I personally don't think a military solution will ever solve the problem of terrorism. In fact, attempting to solve it with military action will only make it worse.
Then what can we do? Again, let's go with what you said. At this point I'm willing to try anything. Let's pull out every single soldier and let's stop bombing them. Do you really think this will stop Muslim terrorism? Or, will it not just allow them free reign to grow even larger.
Divine Insight wrote:This is why it's a shame Hillary didn't become president of the USA. She had the right ideas for how to solve the problem of terrorism. Trump has already contributed to making terrorism worse and will continue to do so. If he thinks the solution to terrorism is to kill all the terrorists he's not thinking at all. That would be like pouring gasoline on a fire in the hopes of putting it out.
Are you just a blind Hillary supporter? Do you understand anything she stands for? Do you know anything about her policies, or do you just blindly support the democrats?

Hillary Clinton's views on foreign policy are far more palatable with MY views than they are with YOURS. She wanted a no fly zone in Syria, she pushed to overthrow Ghadaffi, she would've increased the bombings and drone strikes just as Obama did. Even your beloved Obama understood the threat of Islamic terrorism (even thought he was unwilling to say it) and increase drone strikes in the Middle East.

I honestly wouldn't have a problem if Hillary were President. Her views, both on foreign and domestic policy, are much more aligned with mine. I just think it's hilarious though that someone who wants to stop military intervention in the Middle East would support her.

Monta
Guru
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:29 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Should America nuke the Middle East?

Post #6

Post by Monta »

[Replying to post 5 by WinePusher]

"Then what can we do? Again, let's go with what you said. At this point I'm willing to try anything. Let's pull out every single soldier and let's stop bombing them. Do you really think this will stop Muslim terrorism? Or, will it not just allow them free reign to grow even larger. "

It's too late for that. You have destroyed their cities killed their children and they want revenge. Unfortunatelly it is the rest of the world that is paying the price.

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Should America nuke the Middle East?

Post #7

Post by McCulloch »

WinePusher wrote:Nuking Japan effectively ended WWII. A major reason why America decided to nuke Japan was that the Japanese, at the time, suffered from the same type of suicide bombing martyr"ism" that the Muslims currently suffer from.
No, WWII was effectively over before the nuclear bombs were dropped. The war in Europe had ended. America and its allies could direct the full force of their forces against Japan. The USSR and China both had interests in Japanese territory. After the USA demonstrated to the communist powers its nuclear capability, Japan decided that it would be better to surrender to the USA than to either communist power.

Japan was already starting to attempt to negotiate terms of surrender, but the USA had declared unilaterally that only an unconditional surrender would be acceptable.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
Tired of the Nonsense
Site Supporter
Posts: 5680
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: USA
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Should America nuke the Middle East?

Post #8

Post by Tired of the Nonsense »

WinePusher wrote: Nuking Japan effectively ended WWII. A major reason why America decided to nuke Japan was that the Japanese, at the time, suffered from the same type of suicide bombing martyr"ism" that the Muslims currently suffer from.

People still continue to debate the pros and cons and dropping Nukes on Japan, and whether it was the right way to end WWII. Obviously nuclear weaponry is an affront to humanity, and I would prefer a world where nukes didn't exist, and I do support nuclear disarmament campaigns.

However, Muslim terrorism isn't going away. Nothing the west is doing seems to be working. If the use of nuclear weapons was able to end WWII, would it be able to end Muslim terrorism?
The US used the atom bomb before scientists had a chance to study understand the full ramifications of nuclear radiation and nuclear fallout. Only a terrorist or a truly ignorant person would actually consider using nuclear weapons. And we just elected one president, which is why so many people are holding their breath.
Image "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2284
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1958 times
Been thanked: 739 times

Re: Should America nuke the Middle East?

Post #9

Post by benchwarmer »

[Replying to post 1 by WinePusher]

You would have to carpet bomb the entire planet to hit all the terrorists since they hide among the general population and don't generally congregate into terrorist only positions (the few known terrorist positions are probably regularly bombed today with little effect).

Killing terrorists just seems to create more of them.

I think the only real long term solution is education. Sure, short term as we find them we have to take them out, but this only provides some short term security.

If we can somehow reach people before they are radicalized and indoctrinated with ideas of 'killing all the infidels' then we might have a chance. How do we do that? Sadly I don't have a clue. My small contribution is engaging on a site like this and trying to get people set in their ways from indoctrination to think about other possibilities.

Please note I'm not inferring everyone who disagrees with me is a terrorist! I'm simply saying that practicing getting people to think in other directions is a start. Now I just need to figure out how and where to transfer that skill to where it makes a real difference.

Monta
Guru
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:29 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Should America nuke the Middle East?

Post #10

Post by Monta »

[Replying to post 9 by benchwarmer]


"If we can somehow reach people before they are radicalized and indoctrinated with ideas of 'killing all the infidels' then we might have a chance. How do we do that? Sadly I don't have a clue. My small contribution is engaging on a site like this and trying to get people set in their ways from indoctrination to think about other possibilities"

Who is 'they'?
Who is it who's indoctrinated?
Who thinks its ok to deatroy another country and kill its people?

Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered In US War And Occupation Of Iraq "1,455,590"

Perhaps China or Nth korea or Russia should nuke US before it kills another 1,455.590?

Post Reply