Would it not be cheaper to use nuclear weapons on Raqqa against Islamic state instead of putting pilots at risk and using experience bombs?

Drop Obama. Let him lie them to death.

Israel has had 100 French-made purchased atomic bombs

stored unemployed through all its previous wars. Nuclear

weapon development followed the cash and carry from

France but it too remains unemployed. Not even the less

reasonable WMD war threats between Pakistan and India

were unleashed. What would be cheaper is listening and

not acting on worse ideas. Consider yourself heard.

Have you ever heard of something called nuclear fallout? Using nuclear weapons, aside from devastating a certain area, can make a larger area uninhabitable for many years to come. A nuclear attack would kill far more civilians and friendly or neutral forces than it would IS militants, moreover.

What about all the innocent people that would be vaporized? And then there's the radioactive fallout that would poison a much larger area than just that one city, and make it unlivable for years - even decades. Incinerating an entire city is not the way to go.

If we wanted to destroy the city, kill tens of thousands of civilians and make it completely uninhabitable, sure.

FYI, nukes are FAR more expensive than the bombs being dropped.

Radioactive Fallout will drfit Downwind into other areas and kill thousands of people. It may even drift into your backyard.

You don't know what nuclear weapons are do you?

Since nukes are more expensive and we're not trying to destroy the area...

You may be slightly retarded

depends upon how you define "cheaper" and what you consider the costs.