To nuke or not to nuke? (ISIS)

A couple of MOAB's would do the trick

I also thought of using MOAB's, Daisy Cutter's, Fuel Air explosives and Carpet bombing on the larger ISIS groups. Mixed in with the Drones and the A-10 and Apache units to surgically hit leaders, logistics and smaller intelligence command and control. Then like in the "Art of War" hit ISIS weaker units with corporation's like the old "Black Water" Gun's for hire, that are not tied to the "Law's of War" like the Geneva or Hague Convention. These types of professionals can truly deliver the same fear and pain ISIS is delivering, without cutting off heads, but maybe some Hog Wash as I call it could be just as painful and change their methods? BTW - No Nukes - until one is known for us against America, Europe, Israel or any of our precious allies. I am very sure that the Israeli's would love to share a few "USED" ones in Syria or any other location if warranted!

SSgt you need to stop using apostrophes when you make words plural... not what they're for. That's a misuse of grammatical resources.

PVT Burd, I see that when spelling MOAB's and Daisy Cutter's I did use apostrophes. I have been out of school for over 33 years and thought it was correct. Especially with the acronym MOAB as being plural? Anyway, I am very sorry, zero disrespect meant Private. Oh, I did use it on the word Laws! Thank you for the much needed grammar education.

set up to monitor, shut down, STRIKE, bring systems up and triangulate to the first things that come online....that is a real solution that need to be exploited!!!

Like you said once Pandora's box is open it wont close end of the game.

They are used to operating with a minimum to nonexistent level of technology..and any military hardware they might have on the ground..... is probably what they siezed from Iraq..in other words...Ours... and hardened... an EMP would have limited effectiveness in that scenario.

I agree. wanted to see what others thought.

It would be as useful at eliminating ISIS (or any terrorist organization) as trying to kill all the mosquitoes in South Carolina by nuking my back yard. I'm not sure where this threat, global terrorism, will meet its end. There will always be fanatics. What will likely end up happening is a good old fashioned out-of-control virus that wipes out 1/3-1/2 of the planet and sends us back to the dark ages. Then there will be out of control book burning, rampant fear killings and distrust, and I'm sure someone will set off a nuke or two by accident, or most of the power plants will melt down after the technicians die from whatever horrible virus hits them, and our little blue marble will be a toxic dump for a few thousand years. By then people in the Amazon will have advanced and they'll be ruining - err - running, the show. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

Robert, I have to agree with you. The enemy is global, so a particular strike would do nothing but fuel the fire. We lost our "virginity" as it was put on the news, when the twin towers were hit. I fear, that if we used low yield nukes, it would cause the modern (post nagasaki) world to lose their fear of using same said nukes. I also agree with a previous gentleman, that if they're that concentrated, nukes aren't necessary. What we're missing is resolve. We need to hunt them down and eliminate them. I'm afraid that's not possible without boots on the ground. It's not even possible unless you have the right boots on the ground. Unleash the A-10. Get teams on the ground. Hunt them down.