If someone dropped a nuclear bomb on places where terrorists are residing (like, Pakistan,Syria,etc.), wouldn't that kill so many terrorists?
YES, that'd kill a few innocents too, but this is definitely a good solution , isn't it? Those few 'good people' will be someday killed by these terrorists ANYWAY, so they'd be better dead for a good cause. Grow up.
So, don't you think this is a good solution to terrorism?
-------------------------------------------------------
answers:
Raiyan say: I say just blast the whole earth by dropping the most destructive hydrogen bomb inside the biggest active volcano (like Muana Loa, Hawaii). Then everyone will be at peace because there will be no one to do crimes, right?
-
John say: Me and my teletubbie talibani terrorist buddies hang out underground.
We build big tunnel. We cleanse the world. Big bomb go boom. Alelelele
-
Ronald 7 say: I say Sterilise them
-
Andrew say: That is guilty until proven innocent, therefore unconstitutional. It would also create more terrorists and break several human rights violations. Grow up
-
Jeffrey K say: I'm glad you are not the president.
The while idea is to stop or kill the terrorists to protect the residents of those places. Killing everyone kind of defeats the purpose of the fight. Should a bomb be used to destroy your town in order to kill all the criminals living there?
-
SMH Corp say: It would kill more innocents than terrorists. It will also result in survivors within a large radius from the blast having lifelong health defects. Those are more innocents.
-
Mrsjvb say: nope. it was pretty much universally decided by the civilized nations of the world that nuking the enemy is bad form. there's a reason the US spent so much time and money occupying Japan after the War.
besides all it would do is create more terrorists to avenge the ones that got wiped out.
-
USAFisnumber1 say: No. There is the "Rule of Proportionality" in war. You do not use a nuclear weapon to kill just a few people. It is not proportional to what you need to do and the collateral damage will be more than than what you accomplished.
-
MajorArmedMan say: Little reminder that this is not WWII anymore, times are different.
-
Jim2 say: It would kill WAY more than a few innocent people. In fact, it would kill more innocent people than terrorists. No, it would not be a good solution.
-
David say: Wouldn't doing just that make US the terrorists?
It's almost certain that at least one of the people who perished in the 9/11 attacks committed a crime at some point in their life, but would you say that crashing hijacked airliners into the building that person was in the proper punishment for that crime?
I would say that the scenario you propose is tantamount to the 9/11 attack phenomenologically, wherein we'd be the terrorists. Fighting fire with fire usually isn't the most effective method either. Just my 2 cents.
-
vic say: We should nuke them it worked in hiroshima in ww2
-
Austin say: yeah, u are right! i think everyone who thinks that u shouldnt do this is very very soft, and does not know. terrisots are bad? yes.
-
akihiko say: I found the innovative process of destroying nuclear weapon
-
Andrew Smith say: It could be argued that any person who tried to justify dropping a nuclear bomb on a civilian population would actually BE the worlds worst terrorist.
So to get rid of the worst terrorist on the planet wouldn't need a nuclear weapon at all. It would merely need people to get rid of a tyrannical dictator instead. Which is a lot easier.
-
say: If it really that simple, but it's not you ******* moron.
-
StephenWeinstein say: No, it would kill millions of innocents and only a few terrorists. And it would cause millions elsewhere to become terrorists, so there would be more terrorists alive.
-
New World Man say: That is ABSOLUTELY the stupitest idea I EVER heard!
-
mickey say: yes but these never ending wars are only to make money for politicians and their contractor friends. thats why they put so many stupid rules on them and put our soldiers in prison for killing terrorists. so it never ends
-
marcello say: Arnaud Amalric?
-
Philomel say: This would lead to a nuclear war and the annihilation of the planet.
-
熊冰冰 say: You. Are. An. Idiot.
-
Cee say: Stalin would be proud of you.
-
GEORGE B say: Nations downwind would be rather pisssed.
-
Sally say: Have you any idea what the effects are of a nuclear bomb or even a nuclear accident? If you did, you wouldn't post such nonsense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_...
-
say: who wants radioactive oil ? you can't use nukes when you are stealing a country's natural resources . .
-
John say: To nuke them would cause too much collateral damage. One example of collateral damage are non-combatants. I got spit on and called a baby killer in Los Angeles International Airport by the hippies when wearing my dress uniform. Many think that never happened but I suffered it. We did not nuke Vietnam and used precision gunfire to take out the combatants, belligerents in military speak,
-
electricpole say: The original "nuclear club" became quite aware after just a few years that nukes were not to be used, they were a "force in being". A bargaining chip, detente, etc.
The world is full of loons. They tend to collect more in some regions. And heck, if they just stayed there, no one would care. But nuking indiscriminate areas of the globe is not the answer.
-