Successful ISIS?

With the Battle of Mosul currently underway and the end of ISIS nearing, what would it take for ISIS to be more successful, perhaps even capturing Baghdad or Kobane?
 

Thothian

Banned
Sorcery, basically. If that were in any danger of happening ( the fall of Baghdad I mean), you may expect the use of tactical nuclear weapons by the US ( 10 kt apiece or less) to eliminate ISIS troop formations approaching the city.
 
Probably you would need more moderate and sensible ISIS that it could be succesful. And such probably hardly try capture Baghdad nor it wouldn't even try create large caliphate. And probably it would help too that it doesn't go bombing and shooting Europeans so there not be so strong anti-ISIS thing.
 

CECBC

Banned
Sorcery, basically. If that were in any danger of happening ( the fall of Baghdad I mean), you may expect the use of tactical nuclear weapons by the US ( 10 kt apiece or less) to eliminate ISIS troop formations approaching the city.
US would never use nukes unless it was WWIII. Every country and every US politician would lose their shit. It'd be an act of war against Iraq and pointless since they could achieve the same effect with conventional weapons. I wouldn't be surprised if the president would get impeached and NATO would lose a few members over something like that.

Real life isn't a RTS strategy game.
 
US would never use nukes unless it was WWIII. Every country and every US politician would lose their shit. It'd be an act of war against Iraq and pointless since they could achieve the same effect with conventional weapons. I wouldn't be surprised if the president would get impeached and NATO would lose a few members over something like that.

Real life isn't a RTS strategy game.

Well, Trump and probably many others on his cabinet probably would are very willingful to use nukes. They are mad enough.
 
Well, Trump and probably many others on his cabinet probably would are very willingful to use nukes. They are mad enough.
I'm not so sure. I'm sure there may be plenty of rhetoric and boasting about our nukes, but when it comes to actually carrying out the nastier parts of his rhetoric Trump usually falls short. He's already admitted he's not jailing Hillary, and he's tried to delete some of his campaign proposals from his website before the controversy restored them.
 
Probably you would need more moderate and sensible ISIS that it could be succesful. And such probably hardly try capture Baghdad nor it wouldn't even try create large caliphate. And probably it would help too that it doesn't go bombing and shooting Europeans so there not be so strong anti-ISIS thing.

No, you just needed them to return to the tactics of their founder.

That means in 2014 and 2015 pelt Baghdad with suicide car bombs until the Shia explode with rage and Iraq is torn apart by a civil war.

Zarqawi came closer to winning the war in 2006 with a fraction the reasources then al-Baghdadi ever did.
 

CECBC

Banned
Well, Trump and probably many others on his cabinet probably would are very willingful to use nukes. They are mad enough.
Trump isn't as bad as the tabloids make him out to be. He's not going to nuke anybody.
 

Wallet

Banned
Sorcery, basically. If that were in any danger of happening ( the fall of Baghdad I mean), you may expect the use of tactical nuclear weapons by the US ( 10 kt apiece or less) to eliminate ISIS troop formations approaching the city.
No absolutely not this is just so wrong
 
Trump isn't as bad as the tabloids make him out to be. He's not going to nuke anybody.

if only because rational self-interest dictates that Trump would defenitely die along with everyone else.

Plus if everyone is dead, who is going to pay attention to the One True God?
 
The only situation ISIS would or will get nuked is if ISIS nukes someone else (dirty bomb or god forbid a real nuke). Thankfully, it seems so far, they don't have that capability.

If Baghdad is in serious danger, than the US is going to be funding those Shia militias, aka, the same guys who endlessly infuriated us during the Iraq War. Such a threat seems a great way to make sectarianism even worse in Iraq, but even more Shia militias out there fighting ISIS is going to make taking and holding Baghdad one hell of a problem.

Also, weren't some of ISIS's nominal allies (a couple of powerful Arab tribes) only in it because they viewed ISIS as the lesser of two evils? If ISIS is too successful, then ISIS might lose their support.
 
Top