DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**soajerwaradaY** · 10-08-2012, 05:17 AM

Enough nuclear warheads used and the majority of the country (in fact, any country) could be reduced to rubble; see Hiroshima or Nagasaki for that one.

no brother. hiroshima and nagasaki's terrain were different. they were cities. in afghanistan you can bomb the cities and it will only shed non-combatant blood. the war strategy for the mujahideen was never to fight in the open. mountainous terrain is just impenetrable.

however did NATO not give this a thought? as sheikh nasir noted, WMDs sometimes kill less than combined carpet bombing. look at dresden. its like 1000 carpet bomb = 1 nuclear bomb (minus the radiation). first are legal, second are not. NATO did not even need nuclear weapons in afghanistan, they bombed all they wanted. radiation would be just an irritant and the use of the weapons would bring golbal condemnation (only) so tons of precise hellfire missiles destroyed populations.

10-08-2012, 05:17 AM	#8
soajerwaradaY Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 447 Senior Member	Enough nuclear warheads used and the majority of the country (in fact, any country) could be reduced to rubble; see Hiroshima or Nagasaki for that one. no brother. hiroshima and nagasaki's terrain were different. they were cities. in afghanistan you can bomb the cities and it will only shed non-combatant blood. the war strategy for the mujahideen was never to fight in the open. mountainous terrain is just impenetrable. however did NATO not give this a thought? as sheikh nasir noted, WMDs sometimes kill less than combined carpet bombing. look at dresden. its like 1000 carpet bomb = 1 nuclear bomb (minus the radiation). first are legal, second are not. NATO did not even need nuclear weapons in afghanistan, they bombed all they wanted. radiation would be just an irritant and the use of the weapons would bring golbal condemnation (only) so tons of precise hellfire missiles destroyed populations.
	Quote