Latest news : a shooting "incident " in a shopping centre in munich by one or more culprits, who are still not caught;number of victims is unknown ;there are claims of a few til more than 15 casualties .
Which is not so : I advocated the use of nuclear weapons on terrorists, and they happen to be muslims .
Terrorist are holding the big cities which are full of civilians so you couldn't use the nuclear weapons without killing them both.
The unintentionally killing of civilians in wartime is legitimate .Dresden, Coventry, Hiroshima, Hanoi, etc were all legitimate
He forgets a lot of things... He forgets that the when he backtracked from the big crowd pleasers, two of the weapons he mentioned have not been in inventory since 1972, and one of those was a nuclear air-to-air missile... He forgets that when he backtracked from the big crowd pleasers, the third weapon he mentioned using has not been in inventory since 1985... He forgets that you cannot use weapons you do not have... Basically, he is just spouting nonsense.
Oh yes there is a war on : against terrorism . ISIS has already murdered more than 150000 persons , thus .....
That is not the type of wartime you were comparing it with. It is just referred to as the "war against terrorism" but being on this forum we all should know what the war is and this sure ain't one.
Apparently this is some footage from the Munich attack. http://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-07-22/twitter-video-shows-munich-gunman-opening-fire/ Also there are rumours that it's a far right group. But I stress that's just rumour for now.
Which districts of Paris, Brussels, London, Amsterdam should we bomb first? Or do we start with Dearborn, Michigan? I had a bad falafel in Dearborn once, I say we nuke them first.
Would anyone have objected to the use of a nuclear weapon against Berchtesgaden in 1944 ? Answer : NO Thus, why are people objecting to the use of a nuclear weapon against Rakka ? The situation is the same : both are the HQ of a vicious regime that commits unthinkable atrocities . Those who object to the destruction of the HQ of ISIS could maybe explain their motives to the parents of the child that was beheaded by the allies of ISIS .
Hopefully this will play. An interview given by the motorcyclist who tried to stop the lorry in Nice. What a hero. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/36863925 And please, no more nuclear fallout, our farmers have not long recovered from the Chernobyl fall out and many still suffering thyroid problems. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-18299228 https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/10/120011/radiation-exposure-linked-aggressive-thyroid-cancers
While this is a "fantasy" question, ie having no basis in reality, the correct answer would still be "YES". Read up on the history of the development and deployment of the Atomic Bomb. Because we have already used it stupid...we know what those weapons are capable of. Really? Germany was defeated using nuclear weaponry? You sure? I kinda certain that, in this reality, Germany was defeated without the use of nuclear weapons. Given that there are still those opposed to ISIS and fighting them in Rakka. You could maybe explain your motives for nuking Rakka to them.
Well then...Please quote me passages from the relevant documents concerning atom bomb targeting that show that Berchtesgaden was one of the possible atomic targets in 1943-44, and I will retract my statement.
Sounding more like a Columbine than a Paris... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/23/munich-shooting-german-iranian-gunman-targeted-children-outside/ http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-crime-munich-idUSKCN1021YZ http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/23/europe/germany-munich-shooting/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/23/europe/germany-munich-shooting/ http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/munich-mall-shooting-live-updates-8474748