Articles

Why using nukes on ISIS would be a bad idea

With the latest dustup over comments allegedly made by Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump questioning America's nuclear weapons use rationale, WATM thought it would be worth looking into how popping off a couple nukes on, say, ISIS might actually look.


While a nuclear exchange using even small arsenals like India's and Pakistan's would likely result in a nuclear winter, an extinction-level event, a small nuclear attack would not produce a nuclear winter on its own.

So what would happen if America or another nuclear power were to use a single, small, nuclear bomb to end a conflict?

It would be nice to see ISIS at the bottom of one of these clouds. (Photo: US Department of Energy)

To destroy a city with a small nuclear weapon such as the B61 bomb—capable of explosions from .3 kilotons to 340 kilotons—while minimizing fallout and other repercussions, it would be best to detonate the weapon on the surface at its minimum .3 kiloton yield. This is roughly 2.5 percent the strength of the blast at Hiroshima.

Based on the math, .3-kiloton explosion in the ISIS capital of Raqqa, for example, could be aimed to destroy major infrastructure such as roads without directly hitting the National Hospital or major mosques.

If a .3-kiloton nuclear explosion was properly aimed in Raqqa, Syria, it could avoid most protected sites while still inflicting massive damage on the ISIS capital. (Image: Google Maps and Nuclear Map)

When the bomb went off, a flash of light would fill the sky, blinding anyone looking at it.

A searing heat would accompany the flash, superheating the surfaces of buildings, streets and anything else in the area. Paint, plastics, glues, papers, living tissue and so forth would immediately burn and begin to rise as black carbon. This effect would kill everything in an approximately 160-yard radius from the blast area.

In the following instant, the massive overpressure wave from the blast would rock the surrounding landscape. The wind generated by this blast would pick up all the black carbon, loose objects, sand and rubble, and blast it out from ground zero and up into the atmosphere.

This shockwave would be especially strong — compared to the size of the explosion — in a dialed-down bomb like the B61 at a .3-kiloton setting. Between the searing heat and the shockwave, everyone within approximately 340 yards of the blast would be killed nearly instantly.

All of this would happen in the first second after the bomb detonated.

These four photos were taken as a nuclear blast ripped through the Nevada desert during a 1953 test. The pressure wave at the house was measured at 5 PSI. That same over-pressurization would be present at 340 yards from a .3-kiloton blast. (Photo: US Department of Defense)

In the area surrounding ground zero, going from about 340-750 yards, many people would survive the initial explosion with severe burns, internal injuries from the pressure blast, and blindness.

This would produce an estimated 4,400 casualties and 8,900 injuries, according to nuclearsecrecy.org's Nuke Map.

In the minutes that followed the blast, fires would quickly spread everywhere there is material to burn. Emergency crews would have to juggle between fighting the fires and treating the wounded.

With the sudden increase in debris and damage to infrastructure, first responders would be unable to move the wounded to hospitals. Surviving doctors — which Raqqa already has a shortage of — would be pressed into service treating the wounded.

Given the Islamic State's known disdain for civilians, it's likely these doctors would be ordered to treat militant fighters first.

These worthless sacks do not have a good track record taking care of civilians. (Photo: Youtube.com)

The irradiated debris from the blast and the fires, including burnt plastics and other toxins, would settle on the ground starting in the first few hours after the detonation. As this material settled, much of it would end up in the Euphrates River which runs to the south of the city center. This would poison the water supplies downriver, including much of Syria and the bulk of Southern Iraq.

Any attempt to render humanitarian aid in the area would be hampered by the severe health risks of operating in an irradiated environment. While all branches of the military have personnel and units trained to operate in a nuke zone, only a small number are true specialists.

The only guys trained in responding to chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear attacks are too valuable at home to deploy without good cause. (Photo: US Army National Guard Spc. Eddie Siguenza)

And most of these specialized forces are assigned to domestic counterterrorism missions — meaning that pre-staging them forward or deploying them to assist after a nuclear attack would weaken America's ability to respond to an attack at home.

Meanwhile, there is little evidence that a nuclear attack on the ISIS capital would actually stop them.

Nuclear attacks are designed to work two ways. First, the attack damages infrastructure and the physical warfighting capability of the enemy. But ISIS has relatively few infrastructure needs. It doesn't manufacture tanks or planes, and it can build suicide vehicles and bomb vests nearly anywhere.

The second way a nuclear attack stops an enemy is by delivering such a psychological blow that they stop fighting. But ISIS fighters are already happy with being cannon fodder and suicide bombers. Martyrdom is martyrdom, nuclear or otherwise.

A nuclear attack on a Muslim city, even the ISIS capital, could also prove to be a prime recruiting tool. It might be used as an example that America doesn't care about Muslim lives, and "Remember Raqqa!" would be a rallying cry for recruiters and fighters for the rest of the war.

Using the weapons against any other enemy would be even worse. While ISIS would survive and be able to recruit after suffering a nuclear attack, China or Russia could respond with an actual nuclear attack. The resulting exchange would guarantee a nuclear winter.

So maybe it's best to keep using nuclear weapons as a last-resort deterrent instead of just another weapon in the armory.

Watch the Maple Leafs' tribute to the victims of the Toronto van incident

The Toronto Maple Leafs held a stunning tribute to the victims that died after a van rammed through several pedestrians in Toronto on April 23, 2018.

During the hockey match against the Boston Bruins, the Maple Leafs' announcer referenced the incident in which a van hit and killed at least 10 people and injured 15.

Keep reading... Show less
Articles

How R. Lee Ermey's Hollywood break is an inspiration to us all

While there have been many outstanding actors and celebrities who have raised their right hand, there has never been a veteran who could finger point his way to the top of Hollywood stardom quite like the late great Gunnery Sergeant R. Lee Ermey.

Keep reading... Show less

How this new Russian doomsday device can create huge tidal waves

During Vladimir Putin's address to the Russian Federal Assembly on March 1, 2018, he described a plethora of nuclear weapons Russia is developing.

One of these proposed weapons — an autonomous submarine — stood out among the depictions of falling warheads and nuclear-powered cruise missiles.

Keep reading... Show less

A dog adopted by coalition troops fighting ISIS is finally home

U.S. Army Reserve Sgt. Tracy McKithern loves dogs. She loves her dog, she loves other peoples' dogs, she loves dogs she sees in memes and on TV shows. When she found a dirty little white stray sniffing around the camp she was stationed at during a one-year deployment in Iraq, only one thing was going to happen.

"I fell in love with her immediately."

Keep reading... Show less
Entertainment

6 of the best tank scenes, ranked

Hollywood filmmakers go to extreme lengths to produce bouts of nail-biting hand-to-hand combat and on-screen firefights. These sequences are exceptionally thrilling and, with the right choreography and camera movements, can be lifelike and intense.

Now, add in a monstrous armored vehicle, like a tank or two, and you've officially kicked your movie up a notch. Sure, some films do a great job of showing a tank destroying everything in its path, but few are able to tell a story in a way that makes the well-protected vehicle into its own unique character.

Keep reading... Show less

The unintended consequences of denuclearizing North Korea

North Korea's Kim Jong Un has bought his way in to talks with China's President Xi Jinping, South Korea's President Moon Jae-in, and US President Donald Trump with a commitment to denuclearize his country — but doing so could open up the world to the tremendous risk of loose nukes and loose nuclear scientists.

Though Kim has repeatedly vowed to rid his country of nuclear weapons, the promises remain totally one-sided as no one knows how many, or where, North Korea's nuclear arsenal is.

Keep reading... Show less
GEAR & TECH

The Scalpel missile was designed for a precision cut

Cluster bombs and napalm are two of the most underappreciated yet effective types of munition that a plane can drop on the bad guys, but they're not suited for every purpose. Yes, cluster bombs can do thing JDAMs can't and yes, napalm does provide the age-old "smell of victory," but when the bad guys are using local civilians as human shields, precision is paramount.

Keep reading... Show less
History

5 times the Army Reserve made a difference in a century of war

From brutal trench warfare in World War I to fighting the Nazis and challenging Soviet Russia during the Berlin Airlift, Army Reserve forces have faced the perils of combat for more than 100 years.

The Army Reserve started as a medical force designed to fortify the Army's shortfall of combat doctors. In 1902, Secretary of War Elihu Root proposed the creation of a volunteer reserve to augment the regular Army and National Guard in wartime, and on April 23, 1908, the Medical Reserve Corps, with 160 medical professionals, was launched, with one simple mission: keep Soldiers alive.

Keep reading... Show less