Nations should not go to war against random groups that pop their heads out of the sand. They should only declare war on other nations.Just curious about the range of views here. How many babies and children being killed by bombs/nukes/attacks against ISIS would you consider acceptable to eliminate ISIS?
-None - meaning you think no collateral damage is justified to eliminate ISIS.
-As many as necessary to eliminate ISIS, including dropping nukes (even if it means killing 300,000 babies/children to eliminate the some ~30,000 ISIS fighters) - Nick's position.
-Somewhere in between?
Does the fact that eliminating ISIS would not kill off the ideology that spawned it matter in your analysis? Meaning Islamist groups would still be attempting to create an Islamic state even if ISIS were eliminated.
The use of nukes should be decided based upon an expectation that their use will save lives.
And why are so many liberal pansies starting threads on nukes?