If the claim is... Using nukes were necessary to win the war" then evidence would be needed to back that claim up. Evidence from top military leaders at the time would be nice because it would show that using them was a tactical necessity to win the war. A president that has no knowledge of military tactics stating that it was necessary doesn't count as evidence that it was necessary.
Where are these high ranking military leaders at that time that believed using nukes was necessary? Either you have evidence or you don't.
Again, what would you consider evidence to satisfy you that the US used nukes on Iraq?
Do you even know what types of traces or evidence to look for that show signs of small scale tactical nukes?
Where are these high ranking military leaders at that time that believed using nukes was necessary? Either you have evidence or you don't.
Again, what would you consider evidence to satisfy you that the US used nukes on Iraq?
Do you even know what types of traces or evidence to look for that show signs of small scale tactical nukes?
