POLL: The moral dilemma. Should tactical nuclear weapons be used on rebels in Syria?

[ultron]

I think so, because that's what tactical is for. Your take? And don't forget to vote.

 

[F117]

Raqqa should be nuked, although America might throw a fit when they see their moderate beheaders go up in smoke.

 

[ultron]

Raqqa should be nuked, although America might throw a fit when they see their moderate beheaders go up in smoke.

Not only Raqqa but also Qaeda capital Idlib. Qaeda is just as bad as ISIS if not worse.

 

[oproh]

Russia can consider this since tactical nukes can ensure the end of isis and their rebel buddies, but I believe that collateral damage must be limited.

 

[SiCiSi]

Negative. Tactical nukes will not be as effective as bio and chemical weapons.

If we deployed Ebola/Plague, we will cause far more deaths than a simple nuclear blast as the rebels have no access to advanced medical healthcare aside from the one they receive in Israel and Turkey. Will Israel take in Ebola infested rebels? I doubt it.

BTW, our strategic OP also states that any nuclear weapon we use in a civilian area will be followed up with bio weapons to increase body count among the survivors.