Author Topic: Saudi arabia said lebanon declared war against them  (Read 5388 times)

how would dropping nukes on the middle east even remotely fix anything or kill less people
Nobody can declare war in the middle east if there is nobody that can declare war

Too many people are like "Oh let's not do that because it's immoral and will kill innocents," thus sustaining the current situation, for long enough that it eventually will cause even more lives to be lost than a nuke would've brought, in time.
Just saying my thoughts on the situation with the idea of nuking (most areas in the middle east)

This is one of the most idiotic opinions I have ever seen.

I blame the jews
Why would you ever want to nuke national socialist's? 🤔

why nobody likes espio pt. 38927825

brother what are we unironically talking about nuking the middle east

This is one of the most idiotic opinions I have ever seen.
Instead of calling me an idiot for whatever reason you could at least attempt to try and convince me otherwise of my opinion. I'm open to suggestion.

Instead of calling me an idiot for whatever reason you could at least attempt to try and convince me otherwise of my opinion. I'm open to suggestion.

Do you really need somebody to explain to you why nuking a huge region of the Earth just because you perceive it to be a problem-region is stupid as forget? for one, it would take a rather large payload to nuke the whole middle east. The fallout would affect many other areas outside of the target. There would be an enormous loss of innocent life. It would essentially be a nuclear holocaust. I hope this is elaborate bait.

tfw you try to justify unironically nuking a nation

Instead of calling me an idiot for whatever reason you could at least attempt to try and convince me otherwise of my opinion. I'm open to suggestion.
provide justifications for a nuclear strike on the middle east beyond some vague "they're killing people". what would you even nuke and for what reasons. pretty sure there isn't some kind of active sustained genocide or suicidally imperialistic population that couldn't be handled otherwise. pretty sure also that detonating nukes would likely cause even more instability, massive nuclear fallout, a huge refugee crCIA, a huge diplomatic crCIA between the west and the middle east, and lord knows what else all to deal with whatever terror group of the week has popped up in the most recent regime collapse.

Do you really need somebody to explain to you why nuking a huge region of the Earth just because you perceive it to be a problem-region is stupid as forget? for one, it would take a rather large payload to nuke the whole middle east. The fallout would affect many other areas outside of the target. There would be an enormous loss of innocent life. It would essentially be a nuclear holocaust. I hope this is elaborate bait.
I can agree with you on this point in that you would not be able to nuke the entire middle east. It would be incredibly hard to define a target area to attack however ideally you'd target terrorists. The idea behind nuking the middle-east is that there would be an enormous spike in death that causes an end to the continuous number of deaths over the years.

It's a last-resort attempt to end a state of eternal warfare. Again, do not think I advocate for using nuclear weaponry I am simply stating what I think would happen given the mentioned scenarios.

provide justifications for a nuclear strike on the middle east beyond some vague "they're killing people". what would you even nuke and for what reasons. pretty sure there isn't some kind of active sustained genocide or suicidally imperialistic population that couldn't be handled otherwise. pretty sure also that detonating nukes would likely cause even more instability, massive nuclear fallout, a huge refugee crCIA, a huge diplomatic crCIA between the west and the middle east, and lord knows what else all to deal with whatever terror group of the week has popped up in the most recent regime collapse.
Nuclear weaponry is a last-resort effort that would very likely cause an end to whatever the nuke was sent for in the first place. I do not advocate for nuclear weaponry being used in the middle-east, as for what Mega Bear mentioned logically concludes, there would be an incredibly hard time to define a target area. As well, I do agree there would be other ways to deal with the situation.

A.K.A. I have so far been convinced to retract this statement of mine:
Just saying my thoughts on the situation with the idea of nuking (most areas in the middle east)

First time I've seen someone go full out unironically advocating for genocide. Holy stuff you're stupid.

[really big thinking emoji]

I can agree with you on this point in that you would not be able to nuke the entire middle east. It would be incredibly hard to define a target area to attack however ideally you'd target terrorists. The idea behind nuking the middle-east is that there would be an enormous spike in death that causes an end to the continuous number of deaths over the years.
no, besides the nuclear fallout destroying everything around it like europe, russia and east asia as well the middle east and probably the americas for years, and we don't account for the huge humanitarian issues the world would hold against the nuker and possibly destroy the world economy and stability with that, it would only create a ton more deaths and a whole lot more internal chaos in that region

nuking is not a viable option unless you want to destroy the planet

The idea behind nuking the middle-east is that there would be an enormous spike in death that causes an end to the continuous number of deaths over the years.
nukes do not function like magic erasers that you can wipe over a region to solve all of the background ethnic/religious/socioeconomic problems that cause the rise of terror and general instability in the first place unless you absolutely obliterate everything, which isn't on the table for pretty clear reasons

I can agree with you on this point in that you would not be able to nuke the entire middle east. It would be incredibly hard to define a target area to attack however ideally you'd target terrorists. The idea behind nuking the middle-east is that there would be an enormous spike in death that causes an end to the continuous number of deaths over the years.

It's a last-resort attempt to end a state of eternal warfare. Again, do not think I advocate for using nuclear weaponry I am simply stating what I think would happen given the mentioned scenarios.
Nuclear weaponry is a last-resort effort that would very likely cause an end to whatever the nuke was sent for in the first place. I do not advocate for nuclear weaponry being used in the middle-east, as for what Mega Bear mentioned logically concludes, there would be an incredibly hard time to define a target area. As well, I do agree there would be other ways to deal with the situation.

A.K.A. I have so far been convinced to retract this statement of mine: