Why didnt the US just nuke Iraq and Afghanistan instead of sending in troops?

Do Or Die Son

haha thats a awesome idea..
if they had a vote i would say yes!!!

R'- @\/_1

you dont understand the power of what a nuclear weapon, if they had launched then many civilians would have died and also the radiation would travel back across to america so the radiation would have probably killed them

the only reason why we have nukes is to scare each country, however if it came to it no one will fire a nuke,
apart from the taliban

also the whole world would be against america and it would turn into ww3 which would be inevitably the end of civilisation.

edit: where is jason s

edit: you know nothing about nuclear weapons thats why you asked this question

dinodino

That would be the worst act of terrorism ever committed. Personally, I don't the US should be nuking millions of people that never did anything to anyone in the US. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and Al Queda is only a few thousand people.Seems you think think the US should commit genocide. It's really a quite despicable idea. Nothing more than mass murder.

Tony A

Because there are a lot of companies making vast profits out of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan being run the way they are..

aloo82

you really don't know what happened or what is still happening over there in "hiroshima"do you?
people are still born without major body parts and forget plants, even grass don''t grow in "hiroshima", and its already been 70 years, the effect of the radiation still persists in the genes of those survived and their offsprings and their offsprings,
nuke does not kill, it melts people like a fire melts a candle and everything around it,
so take a chill before you think of using nuke again my friend

gib000

The world is trying to end nuclear warfare, so that wasn't an option.

coder.head

A much, much better question would be: why doesn't the US exercise the full power of its brain trust to find ways to avoid war?

This country has some of the world's biggest thinkers. Why not put them to work finding amicable resolutions to world problems instead of contracting them to build bigger and better weapons? Throughout history, we can see that war never solves a problem; it only creates more problems. Instead of repeating history, we should break the cycle and stop killing each other.

Does the idea of slaughtering thousands of people and irradiating a massive area of a continent make you feel morally superior? Nuking the middle east would only add fuel to the terrorists' fire and breed hatred and suspicion against the US from other world powers. And as far as your "fixing the economy" statement goes: the money used to support the troops now would not have been fed back into the economy. It would have been spent rebuilding the country you opted to destroy. Again, look at history as your reference.

Beastie

Thousand US soldiers worth more than entire populations of Iraq and Afghanistan. The scorecard you're using is faulty, old fruit.

And just so you're very clear on this, the reason no one nuked Iraq is because it's bloody hard to get people to work in an irradiated environment and you can't get oil out without putting in the infrastructure.

Bigger picture. Iraq had the precise square root of f' all to do with terrorism.

Hey Nickel... if you were really in the Marine Corp, you'd know how to spell Semper Fidelis properly.

pmt853

Perhaps they didn't want to kill millions of innocent civilians who would just like to get on with making a decent living and bring up their kids in a peaceful environment.
It does not seem reasonable to denounce those who disagree with you as "weak" if they simply have to express a different viewpoint to make you sick. The world is a complicated place and brute force is not the answer to all problems.

Billy11B

It sounds great but if you nuke the Middle East with all of the proved oil reserves there how would you get it out of a contaminated area? If you nuke on Muslim country you would have to nuke them all because they would all be up in arms against us. Terrorists are like rats - they move to where they can find food and shelter - in spite of all our wonderful technology war is still about fighting and that takes grunts like us to fo the work.

No name.

That might encourage other countries to use nukes. And if you know the power and damage it can cause you wouldn't want a nuke on your home. You wouldn't even want the country/state next to you to be nuked.

nosdda

That would mean murdering 7,000,000 men women and children who are completely innocent. Think Again!!

Rob Roy

Well if Iraq had been 'nuked' as you so delightfully put it do you think all the nuclear fall out would have stopped at the Iraq borders It could well be it could be carried to places like Saudi Arabia etc (look at the map) and would have stopped oil production in that part of the world for years. Horror of horrors it might even end up on Israel. Try engaging brain before writing such rubbish.

cnqaus

I would have loved the toxic fallout the monsoons would have brought to northern Australia. That is assuming I'd have to wait for these trade winds.

Unforgiven

they want to kill terrorist not people who were not traind in the terrorist training camps, not innocent women and children, even tho this happens some times and we get blamed for it all the time. We want to replace the government not nuke them off the map.

Miss Crazy!!

Look at all the heat we are getting from water boarding a couple known terrorists..

What do you think would happened if we had did that? We would never hear the end of it.

Mark K

because the world would cry and libs would give Iran Nuclear Weapons

lilmisscarriage

Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 ?? ; then where are all those missing W M D s somebody pleeaasse tell me ; where are the missing Explosives ? Something brought those Building down ? FAST !!! Maybe they were in the lugggage of the terrorist ?? ; Huh Maybe ?? three or four will fit into an ordinary Lunch box ! Scheezzzzeeeee it ain`t rocket science Folks ! Is it ?

the truth to this

the truth is.we signed a thing with Russia saying we wont shoot are nukes and we have to cut back on making them.if we were to shoot one at iran or anywhere russia and other state we be forced to shoot the nukes at ous.thats why we cant shoot them.

Elliander Eldridge

There are quite a few problems with this idea: 1.) Terrorists are not enemy combatants, not members of any nation. If a Nuclear Bomb was dropped the survivors would just hate us more leading to terrorists to replace them. This is proven by what happened after a bombing of Fallujah. To get to one man, just one terrorist, hiding in the city the entire city was bombed. The occupants were not warned because they would have warned the terrorist. After the bombing there was crying in the streets as the survivors mourned so many dead. Mothers for their children, children for their parents, fathers for their sisters, the list goes on. After the mourning many of the survivors joined the terrorists with a desire to retaliate against the Americans in retribution for what was done to them. If they were hit with a nuclear bomb instead there was be substantially more terrorists as a result. 2.) Nuclear weapons disperse radiation into the winds. Even the radiation they use in armor piercing weapons has had a noticeable impact on the radiation levels of Europeans, thanks to the prevailing winds. The surrounding countries to be contaminated would take it as an act of war against them, and Europe would face a crisis from radiation poisoning that would not go unpunished. Many of those nations would would be impacted are capable of Nuclear weapons themselves and would retaliate with their own Nuclear weapons. 3.) Both the U.S. and Russia have all the Nuclear weapons armed and we are tracking each other. If a Nuclear Bomb does anywhere near Russia they, as a national policy, would have to send their own bombs at us. Actually something similar almost happened in the 90's. America sent out a test that was not nuclear but appeared that way to scanners and Russia almost sent their Nukes at us. Had their leader followed procedure we would have gone into accidental nuclear war, but their leader doubted it was real so did not follow procedure. If we sent an actual nuclear bomb to a nation on the same landmass as Russia they can and will attack us... Just as if a nuclear capable nation attacked Canada, Mexico, or Cuba it would be seen as an attack on America. 4.) Controversy. Enough Americans are opposed to the use of nuclear weapons that it would make re-election much more difficult for anyone who uses or supports their use. 5.) Oil. America needs oil, pure and simple. If we Nuked nations with large potential oil output, assuming any remains under the debris, it would not be safe to extract it. This would lead to higher oil prices around the world and would significantly impair economic recovery. Nuclear weapons are a cowards weapon that are foolish to use for the above reasons and more. These days nations only go nuclear to keep their neighbors from attacking them, not to use them. It's a stand off of sorts. Everyone's got their guns ready and whoever looses their cool first dooms the world.

dc41hero

What the heck are you thinking. you know, people need to overthrow there republican brains and think about REAL world situations. if we were to nuke iraq right now, it would be... the end of history... the planet earth would probably have contaminated tsunamis and earthquakes that would break the rictor scale!!! So nuking iraq... LAST RESORT!!!!!

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: