OK. I feel like I have to ask this:
Are you against the use of *all* weapons against ISIS, or just nuclear ones?
If you're against nuclear but aren't against conventional ones, then why did you use this line of argument? The caption at the bottom could be directed against conventional weapons just as much as against nuclear weapons, so it would seem to be self-defeating and not the best line to use.
But if you're against both (nuclear weapons and conventional weapons), then what would you say that the ideal strategy against ISIS would be?