So you wanna 'bomb Isis'? Let's try this out.

Okay, people are so quick to say 'bomb them' each time Isis beheads someone. I'm all for that too, but um......all I have to say is this: i found a site online where you can pretend to bomb a place to see how big of an area the bomb would cover. They have a few bombs to choose from - even that huge one made in the 50's I think that was the biggest bomb to ever ever exist, the Tsar Bomba.

Well I decided to see how much of Iraq it would take out.
It took out a tiny area. Ground zero was Ramadi and it spread out to slightly after Falluja.
So if people were to 'bomb them', they'd have to drop quite a few Tsar Bomba's on them. A lot of few, actually.

And no one makes a Tsar Bomba any longer.

The ONLY thing on that site that annihilated not just Iraq but every where from there to Japan and Norway and all around that was the Life Ending Asteroid, like the kind that took out the dinosaurs. Yes, that asteroid was an option in the drop down list.

Just putting a point out to everyone.
Here, go play with it yourself.
It's kinda sickly interesting....

www.wouldisurviveanuke.com...

a reply to: sarra1833

Once you know where they are there is no need to use an area of effect weapon never mind of the atomic variety. A drone with a single Hellfire missile could wipe out this Troublesome John character with out him ever seeing it coming if and when he is located.

a reply to: sarra1833

It took out a tiny area. Ground zero was Ramadi and it spread out to slightly after Falluja.
So if people were to 'bomb them', they'd have to drop quite a few Tsar Bomba's on them. A lot of few, actually.

They already did. See Fallujah, Depleted Uranium.

Isis is a tool, to create chaos and aid in the establishment of a partitioned Iraq.

In 2007, the Bush administration financed a Sunni army — the Awakening — and Galbraith says this is responsible for the success so far in Iraq. Biden would take this to the next step and encourage the Sunnis to form their own region, which would control that army, just as the Kurdistan region controls the Peshmerga, or the Kurdistan army, Galbraith says. A decentralized, loosely federalized partitioned Iraq might eventually be capable of defending its own interests against its larger neighbors of Iran and Turkey, but right now, Galbraith says, that's not happening.

NPR

Isis is merely a tool, to divide Iraq on ethnic lines, conveniently away from the oil resources. That tool also serves another function.

Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works.

Blood Borders: How A Better Middle East Would Look

Blood Borders: New Middle East Map

Yes, bombing is not a very effective method to destroy Isis. But destroying Isis is not the goal.

Food for thought.

a reply to: sarra1833

I strongly suggest that you quit playing with war game sites on the internet and research the capabilities of F-16, Apaches, A-10s, C-130 gunships, Tomahawk and etcetera missiles and other tools for doing serious war. Fleets of Toyota trucks do not a viable army make. (I have one but they are not bulletproof.)

(I wonder if you have investigated thermobaric bombs (air-fuel bombs) that suck all of the oxygen out of a large area such that things burn and die from suffocation?) I guess not.

Yep all that technobable flux capacitor and transmonbobulators did us the world of good in Iraq and Afghanistan
Boots an the ground and ASSAULT not a policing action is the only way
Edit
Not that I condone such things, actually I have something of a strange soft spot for some elements of ISIS
a reply to: Aliensun

The use of a nuclear weapon is not to carpet bomb. You use it to destroy large areas of infrastructure and to demoralize. Since you can't really use it to destroy much in the way of significant infrastructure in the ME, then you have to assess whether or not you can demoralize with it.

So, the question becomes, would you put ISIS into submission with nukes? And if so, how many nukes would that even take, and would the costs in terms of the radiation be worth the end results?

I am thinking it wouldn't be, but I'm also thinking that any serious effort to uproot ISIS will also be extremely costly in terms of bloodshed.

If you had to do it via air delivery avoiding nukes
Napalm, lots and lots of napalm
Or carpet fuel air bombs as mentioned above

a reply to: Neocrusader

I think any attempt to simply bomb them out would be too inefficient. There are just too many places for them to scatter to in the ME. This isn't like Dresden. I think you'd be spraying out a lot of wasted munitions.

There is too much land area and not enough actual ISIS.

a reply to: sarra1833

Why even consider using a weapon that poisons the entire world? That is unnecessarily cataclysmic, and coming from an individual through text reveals a stronger destructive energy within you rather than a synthesis of creativity and destruction. Apparently, the vibration has not reached surface that a group... even a very small, well dimensional group of powerful Minds is Truly all we need to usher mass ascension. Likewise, the completely childish acts by this group of douchebags..cough... can be stopped by properly creating, channeling, and directing magic. Or spiritual possession. . Whichever terminology suits you.