Should we nuke Iraq, and Afghanistan, and all those middle east "Countries"?

Question

should we just blow them all up, and hope to get Osama?

Answer 1

I honestly love the level of thought put into some of the questions and answers i find here. With regards to your question I have many friends that live in or are from Arabic countries. They are not all bad and don't all yell kill Americans. And it's truly sad that in some of the countries I've been to the U.S. military is treated better then by our own countrymen.

Answer 2

NO, nukes are not practical. Some statistics:
Iraq pop 26 million, 437,000 sq km
Afghanistan pop 30 million, 647,500 sq km
1 (1 MT) nuke causes total devastation over 23 sq km. The US has about 10,000 nukes, so an area of 230,000 sq km could be utterly destroyed. Note that this is about 20% of the land area of the two countries mentioned.

An all-out nuclear attack would kill 50% or more of the population outright. Most of the victims would be ordinary people in urban centres. A lethal dose of radioactive fallout would blanket the middle east and plumes would spread as far as China and India. The fallout would kill 2-3X as many people as the blast and heat effects, and many of them would be in neutral countries. China and India would each lose more than 10 million people to fallout. That would not be good for relations. In about 2 weeks the radioactive cloud would blanket the US killing few outright, but causing sickness in millions. There is a good chance that Osama would be somewhere in the 80% of the land not directly targeted with a nuke, so that you would kill 100 million people and still miss the primary target.

The longer term effects are even worse. Other parties would propably use nukes also to the detriment of all. It does not matter who uses the nukes, the whole globe would suffer an environmental catastophe. The dust thrown up by the initial explosions would dim the sun causing widespread crop failures. Even the richest countries have less than a year's food supply in reserve. Billions of people would starve 6-12 months later.

In answer to your question, no, nukes are not a good idea. Send in a few good men with rifles instead to get Osama. A lot fewer innocents will get hurt.

Answer 3

I think a strategic nuke strike on Iran would solve a whole $hitload of the world's problems. Who cares what the world thinks of us? They all want us dead anyway--and it would be really hard to blow up a mall or middle school in America if Iran doesn't have a weapon bigger than a baseball bat left after the firestorms. Why are nukes seen as such a end-all, evil thing? It's a weapon. Like all weapons it's terrible but people would be just as dead if we dropped anvils on their heads from cargo planes. Everyone always looks back on the two nukes that were dropped on Japan (remember Japan? The agressor nation that attacked us but is now one of our strongest allies?) and sees us as evil because we used a weapon of war before our enemies did. Most people don't realize that the 'conventional' fire bombs dropped on Tokyo killed more people than both A-bombs did. What's the difference? They were all just as dead. If slagging a country that has vowed to destroy us would cool the world crisis and stabilize the mideast, China, Russia, North Korea, etc, etc, etc., then we probably should give it due consideration. Or perhaps we should wait until a dirty bomb kills fifty thousand American men, women and children before we decide to defend ourselves.

Answer 4

If you nuke the Middle East you will miss Afghanistan because it is in Asia. Why don't you try to get some rest and ask the nurse to increase your medication.

Answer 5

well they are not much of countries. iraq is half the size of colorado (my home state and proud of it). so really if we were to sweep across afghanistan or iraq it would only take a few hours and we would get anyone we wanted. but i prefer nukes. they use less gas. :-) maybe some ICBM's and H-Bombs too. that should do the trick

Answer 6

properly, for sure you forgot the U. S. developed the oil fields interior the middle East so the tree huggers like Gore ought to fly their inner most jets, polute more beneficial than numerous small city, and look down their noses on anybody else. in case you want to be certain what helps, what has a tree hugger finished to boot holding the U. S. from utilising the oil that God has blessed us with? Or what "advantages" have the middle East been? ought to the U. S. keep on with their lead in giving to humanitarian motives, woman's rights, gay rights, equivalent remedy to all interior the courts, sentences that consists of whipping and putting, the thanks to manage the negative, and their nationwide wellness courses?

Answer 7

I'll try to make this as nice as I can. Nuclear weapons should be used only as a LAST RESORT! Idiots like you think that if there's a problem, we should nuke it. You have to think of the enviromental consequences, and the tremendous loss of human life. Right now, we stick to conventional warfare, like we should.

Answer 8

Yes

Answer 9

YES,YES Cause a Nuclear Winter

Answer 10

while i am a fan of US military strength, simply Nuking countries at random wouldnt exactly be in our best interest.