Is using nuclear weapons on terrorists the ultimate answer to fighting the war on terror?

Question

Many Bush supporters believe that we should just WIPE OUT whole areas of different nations that have terrorists--without any forethought.

With the exception of Obama, it seems are illustrious Democratic candidates feel that we SHOULD use such weapons on areas--of certain countries--that harbor such terror organizations.

Is this what it means to "take the gloves off"--if conventional warefare fails to uproot terrorism?

Answer 1

Using nuclear weapons can NEVER be the means of solving the world's problems with terrorists or anything else. Such stupidity is the direct route to the extinction of the human race. There are quite enough countries now, both allies and enemies, in possession of nuclear weapons to ensure that the first to "push the button" will incite World War III, after which will ensue nuclear winter and the end of civilization, such as it is. Human beings, in order to survive and thrive, must evolve the intelligence and sense to resolve problems without resorting to warfare . Truly civilized societies would not need to employt such primitive means of dealing with their neighbors. This is just a small planet where an action or error committed in Afghanistan, for instance, can directly affect us in the United States of America.

Answer 2

Homeless in Phoenix got it. We must eliminate the enemy’s capacity to wage war.

We have powerful enough conventional munitions such as F.A.E.’s (MOAB) (fuel air explosives) that turning to nukes is an absolute last resort which I pray will never happen.

These terrorists are being funded by someone (Saudi, Iraq, Previously Saddam etc...) and they are being trained somewhere. We must shove the limp wristed pacifists aside and do what must be done to ensure our own civilization can continue to evolve and improve at least until they regroup.

I am personally pretty ticked off that we must spend so much time & effort on these dirty little SOB’s when we could be taking care of our own here at home and abroad.


Edit:
Buttermeacrumpet: ‘Because not all those areas are full of terrorists, it's just a minority.’

I am sorry friend but, you have a very short and selective memory. I seem to recall not a handful of people in the streets of all Islamic nations celebrating when our towers fell but millions. I remember millions in the street calling for Salmon Rushdie’s head. Remember the Mohammad cartoons? I remember them and once again, it wasn’t 10-20 or even a thousand protesting, it was millions. Open your eyes.

Answer 3

No, no and double no.
Because not all those areas are full of terrorists, it's just a minority. Plus if that's the plan then every country on the planet will need to be destroyed, including America.

Going to war because of terrorists is simply just adding petrol on a fire. You end up creating more terrorists because you start involving people who were unaffected before.
Edit 1:

@lurchleft

Are you serious? Do you know where some of these people got their funding from? America has supplied A LOT of munitions and arms to these countries, and still does.

America supplied weapons and munitions to the afghan freedom fighters and the Taliban in the 80s to allow them to wage war on Russia. Hey, it even mentions it in the second Rambo film.

Also lets talk about Ireland, they had a terrorist sect named the IRA. If we had the power, should we have bombed Ireland? Thing about all the people in Ireland who wouldn't have made it over to America... and the list goes on.

How about you learn a little bit about history and make educated decisions before just jumping on the bandwagon of ignorance!

Edit 2:

Oh and yes it is a minority... if it wasn't I think we'd all be dead by now, or at least there would be a lot more bombs going off.

As it stand you are more likely to be hit by lightening then be killed in a terrorist incident.

Answer 4

no... if we're against terrorism, then how can we use nuclear weapons on millions of innocent people? Don't you think that would be a terrorist act far worse than any we've ever seen? the bush administration and the democratic candidates have a lot of ideas about the war on terror, but your ideas of using nuclear weapons are not among them. what kind of world would you like to live in? one where entire areas of the world are destroyed and rendered uninhabitable by nuclear weapons?

Answer 5

You do not use a sledgehammer to crack a nut!

Fallout from these weapons would affect the whole planet including countries that have nothing to do with this conflict.

Answer 6

Obama voted for funding the Iraq war....sorry to bust your bubble, he's no anti-war candidate. And the gloves are already off with this Psychopathic Dick Cheney War-Criminal in power.

Answer 7

Mass destruction is the only way to WIN a war. It was proven in WWII.

Answer 8

If the terrorists use one first, and they will if they can, then by all means.

Answer 9

We must kill them. We must incinerate them. Pig after pig, cow after
cow, village after village, army after army.
. Those nabobs. I hate them. How I hate them..."

Answer 10

Oh Yeah, killem all and god sort it out.