Alex.
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2014
- 9,894
- 4,977
- 2,095
- Banned
- #181
Facts and circumstances were different. For one the enemy was centrally located, now they are scattered all over the globe. Second, there are more effective ways to handle this than a gigantic and nasty bomb.Wrong, and clueless. The last time we nuked, the world got better, not worse.I am not clueless, I am just not foolish enough to think that mass annihilation will solve anything. Have you thought what your post apocalyptic world will look like? Of course not. Once the bar has been set to the level you suggest that will establish a new standard on how to deal with problems.THEY DON'T NEED AN EXCUSE FOR VIOLENCE, YOU CLUELESS SON OF A BITCH!!If we did that then we are doing the very same thing that we decry. Therefore, not only will it be ineffective against the greater population of terrorists but it gives them a valid cause to lop the heads off of every sorry bastard they will encounter.We can take some lead out of their pencil by turning their cherished city into a glass museum. You have to destroy the hornets nest before you can hunt down the strays.You can not nuke terrorists.
They are everywhere.....they have cells.... it's not like Hiroshima ...all in one place....
It's a different kind of war....it's called terrorism for a reason.
That's why it's so much difficult.