Why don't we detonate a nuke in each of Iraq's five largest cities, and finish this war on terror for good?

Answer 1

The use of Nukes by Israel or any other country in the region will have devastating effects.

Depending on the kiloton yield, the outcry would be numbing. 500 kiloton strategic nukes would have global suicide implications, while tactical nukes will have regional implications.

Strategic nukes, at least a dozen of them in the 500 kiloton range would take out the middle east and vaporize around 190 million (3% of the world). Another 200 million in nearby countries would die from radioactive poisoning, and their only crime would be living next door to the Middle East.

Carl Sagan estimated a very low threshold for nuclear winter, a 100 kiloton blast would ignite fires that would cause a nuclear winter....ie, the sun would be blotted out due to the dust and ash from the fires and all plant life would cease to exist....followed shortly thereafter by animal life.

So the option of eliminating the middle east by nukes is global suicide....which is why nukes have been a deterrent to total war for the past 60 years

Answer 2

That'd generate huge clouds of ash that would disrupt the Earth's ecosystem possibily for decades. It's said that if we detonate 12 we could block out the Sun long enough to kill all life on the planet.

So, to start with, detonating any nukes is a violation of countless international treaties and agreements. Detonating such a device would put the US in boiling water; we'd probably get kicked out of the UN, we'd get embargoes put on us left and right and the economy would crumble beyond recognition.

Second of all, the ecosystem would be ruined for years and the world would go into a massive famine; it'd be like the Potato Famine from Ireland except manifested in the form of a level 4 biological hot agent and would spread everywhere. Countless more people would starve in the world and the human population would be in serious trouble. Food chains would be cut off as certain plants die off and then we'd see effects on the animal kingdom. We'd lose species to extinction and we'd reck havoc on the ocean as well.

So if you think we should nuke the Middle East to end all the mud-slinging over there then I'd suggest you bring a slingshot with you: just join their slinging since you'd fit right in.

Answer 3

The bombs wouldnt wipe them(the people innocent or otherwise) out imediately, it would cause a level of suffering beyond most people's nightmares.

The fall out would affect most of the populated world, think about were the MIDDLE east is.

The people that did have links,
financial, relational or just sympathised would be even more prone to acts of terrorism than ever before.

The UN would take over your countrys government and military after demolishing a small portion of it.

That would actually make everything they have ever done seem justified, infact it would be worse than anything they have ever done.

I dont think all Iraqs citizens are terrorists.

Answer 4

Well, let's see.......5 nuclear detonations....

What effect do you think that would have on the rest of the Middle East, the continent of Africa and most of Europe. Do you think it might also effect Indonesia, Australia, most of Russia, the Koreas, Japan and most of Alaska. Do you think fall out would affect the Islands of the South Pacific and Hawaii? How about the U.S.

Then you have to consider what those nations and countries effected so terribly by our careless nuclear attack might do. How do you think the other "nuclear family" countries might respond when their crops fail, their people and animals start dying. Do you think they might be angry enough to "nuke a few of us"?

I think you have no concept of nuclear fission, no idea at all about what happens when a "nuke" is detonated...

But, don't worry, when you grow up and learn to read, you will study it and then understand how very juvenile your question is....

Answer 5

Because that'd leave the Iraqi terrorists outside those cities, along with the terrorists in Iran, the 'occupied territories,' Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and rest of the Muslim world - and those already positioned throughout the rest of the - to continue the fight.

And, like any other attempt to fight the war on terror, it would 'create more terrorists.'

Answer 6

We?

Is that human beings trying to make a honest living as most of the people in Iraq try to do?

The terrorism is fed by a few cowards who hide among the innocent unfortunately.

So my answer is no, its not that simple.

Answer 7

First of all, destroying Iraq will not end any war on terror. Acually it was Afghanistan we invaded as part of the war on terror. We invaded Iraq for other, now admittedly dubious reasons. Secondly, if we intentionally slaughter entire cities full of innocents we will no longer be able to delude ourselves into believing we are any better than the terrorists.

Answer 8

I don't think Europe or Asia would much like the fallout from that. Most countries prefer that the next five generations on kids aren't born with birth defects.

Answer 9

Because have basically vowed not to use nuclear devices in acts of aggression, which with out someone else nuc-ing us it would be.

Besides it would not end terrorism, just PISS off the Whole World.

Answer 10

Yeah, that would work. I'm sure all the terrorists would give up after that.

Do you remember what nationality most of the 9/11 hijackers were? They were Saudis. Not one Iraqi was among them.