Pakistan's A.Q. Kahn is a notorious nuclear weapons proliferator.
But ISIL going nuclear would be suicidal.

ISIL occupies the Buttfupistans of the globe; land the U.S. would not hesitate to nuke if preserving U.S. national sovereignty required it.

And to give you an idea of just how lethal our nuclear triad (land based nuclear missiles, our B1 & B2 bombers, and our nuclear powered nuclear armed submarines) is, ONE Minute Man missile has more explosive power than all the explosives used in WWII by all sides; including the nukes we dropped on Japan.

Dandy.
How?

U.S. boots on the ground?
You want ANOTHER U.S. ground war in the Middle East?

Start dropping nukes now?

The United States of America is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons in War.

We get a pass on the WWII thing, because ... you know:
- it was a World War, &
- we were the only nation that had them.

If we as indifferent to nuking diaper-heads as we were about nuking little yellow people; what do you think that will do to our standing in this globalizing world?

The nukes were dropped on Japan to end the war and actually to save more lives had the war continued

Do you really believe that ?

* "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." Japan's Commander Isoroku Yamamoto

Do you really believe that ?

Dandy.
How?

U.S. boots on the ground?
You want ANOTHER U.S. ground war in the Middle East?

Start dropping nukes now?

The United States of America is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons in War.

We get a pass on the WWII thing, because ... you know:
- it was a World War, &
- we were the only nation that had them.

If we as indifferent to nuking diaper-heads as we were about nuking little yellow people; what do you think that will do to our standing in this globalizing world?

I am in no where oblivious of the restricting laws on uses of nukes and other extremely lethal arsenals. Nor am I advocating another 'bush' war in the middle east. But a doctrine of necessity should be 'enacted' to deal "lawlessly with those lawless savages who knows no law and doesnt obey any either

""lawlessly with those lawless savages who knows no law and doesnt obey any either"

Does that include China's claim over the South China Sea?

"Does that include China's claim over the South China Sea?" a

Thats great. But pre-emptive hard "strike" on ISIS now by The US would save nine stitches. Bearing in mind that US is their target anytime soon.

The nukes were dropped on Japan to end the war and actually to save more lives had the war continued(which it would have). Not just being indifferent.

"Pre-emptive" is not a term I would agree with. They already attacked Americans.

What should have been done a long time ago is simple. The second ISIS took and killed an American hostage, we consider this an act of war. Let our troops go at them un-inhibited for a few weeks, by which time their numbers would be almost non-existent, then pack up and come home. Rinse and repeat, if needed. They would lose followers and Will very quickly as they would look like the sissies they are, and joining them would mean almost certain death.

It would be a mistake to try and kill them all. It's an impossible feat that would lead to a never-ending conflict. But a quick, very hard/effective "slaughter" would send a message; "There are easier people to mess with than the U.S.". This is the only way ISIS can actually be dealt with.

With the rise of ISIS in west Asia, one is afraid to the extent that perhaps they might get access to a nuclear arsenal from states like Pakistan. ISIS recently said it could attempt to buy its first nuclear weapon within a year and that it might come from Pakistan. The Islamic state has billions of dollars in the bank, so they call on their wilayah (official) in Pakistan to purchase a nuclear device through weapons dealers with links to corrupt officials in the region

Pakistan's A.Q. Kahn is a notorious nuclear weapons proliferator.
But ISIL going nuclear would be suicidal.

ISIL occupies the Buttfupistans of the globe; land the U.S. would not hesitate to nuke if preserving U.S. national sovereignty required it.

And to give you an idea of just how lethal our nuclear triad (land based nuclear missiles, our B1 & B2 bombers, and our nuclear powered nuclear armed submarines) is, ONE Minute Man missile has more explosive power than all the explosives used in WWII by all sides; including the nukes we dropped on Japan.

Dandy.
How?

U.S. boots on the ground?
You want ANOTHER U.S. ground war in the Middle East?

Start dropping nukes now?

The United States of America is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons in War.

We get a pass on the WWII thing, because ... you know:
- it was a World War, &
- we were the only nation that had them.

If we as indifferent to nuking diaper-heads as we were about nuking little yellow people; what do you think that will do to our standing in this globalizing world?

The nukes were dropped on Japan to end the war and actually to save more lives had the war continued(which it would have). Not just being indifferent.

Do you really believe that ?