Grade the Wisdom Dept.: Tancredo: Nuke us, and we'll nuke Mecca

[Captain Ochre]

Here's the subheader:

(Associated Press/FOX)

DENVER — A Colorado congressman told a radio show host that the U.S. could "take out" Islamic holy sites if Muslim fundamentalist terrorists attacked the country with nuclear weapons.

Click on the URL below, read the account, and then grade the wisdom.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162795,00.html

[Meh_Gerbil]

The following statement is good:

DENVER — A Colorado congressman told a radio show host that the U.S. could "take out" Islamic holy sites if Muslim fundamentalist terrorists attacked the country with nuclear weapons.

Here is the improved version:

DENVER — A Colorado congressman told a radio show host that the U.S. would turn Islamic holy sites into strip clubs if Muslim fundamentalist terrorists attacked the country with nuclear weapons.

[TheOneAndOnly]

It's stupid, unproductive, inflammatory and isn't likely to make any impact with a fanatic who is determined to explode some city.
If the fanatics believe God is on their side, why would they fear America's missiles will be able to destroy Mecca? Surely Allah will fry the guidance chips or the missiles will all be lost in strange accidents, but none will get near Mecca.

And let's not forget that Mecca is a city in a country, Saudi Arabia. America would be declaring war on the Saudi Arabian people. Also, don't forget the Bush and Al Saud cartels are in bed together.

[Meh_Gerbil]

Also, don't forget the Bush and Al Saud cartels are in bed together.

All you've proven with this statement is that you watched Farenheit 9/11.

[Raptor]

I'll go with "Dangerously Unwise."

Nuking Mecca in retaliation would kill just as many innocent people. To say that all of Islam is an extension of Bin Laden's radical views is a bit much.

[Teallaura]

Emotionally appealing - but seriously flawed.
The problem with MAD - the problem most likely to have caused an escalation - was that it relies on the sanity of the other side. There were more than a few times during the Cold War when either the Americans or the Russians (and sometimes both at once) doubted seriously the sanity of the opponents leadership. If you are genuinely dealing with fruitcakes, (under MAD) first strike becomes the only viable option during an incident - this is very bad if not destroying the world is your objective.
Okay, the CW pitted two nation-states against each other - but the war on terrorism is different. We have no single state we can point to - or point weapons at. And we already know we are dealing with 'sanity-challenged' people in many cases. Now, add the kind of tremendous emotional pressure from a threat of that magnitude to an already not terribly sane set of minds - and a not terribly stable part of the world - this is not the kind of scenario where cooler heads have any chance to win out. These are also not the 'grin and bear it' type of folks - the probability is that you will escalate the situation and increase the likelihood of them lashing out - of a kind of 'first strike' coming about.
The present situation isn't the best in the world, but it does stand a much better chance of reining in the extremists. Like it or not, these guys do need a fairly tolerant political climate in their home bases (which they lost in large part subsequent to 9/11). There isn't a Middle Eastern state on Earth that doesn't know full well what will happen should a nuclear device go off in New York - somebody’s nation-state gonna go boom. That threat (against the harboring/sponsoring nation, not holy sites) is very real to them - and since most rulers like to stay breathing, they have no intention of letting nut cases with nuclear weapons get linked to them. It doesn't make a nuclear scenario impossible, but it does significantly reduce the likelihood because no state will let anything that nuts operate even remotely freely inside their borders - they cannot afford it and they know it.
Terrorists need that open door - or wink-wink - policy to operate efficiently. There's a reason they are so intent about Iraq - they can't afford the loss. No nation-state is gonna risk ticking off the US knowing it not only can but will come knocking. They've already started serious (by terrorist standards, and by ours in some cases) crackdown efforts. It ain't easy planning big terrorist events and it's a lot harder when you got cops breathing down your necks. It doesn't shut them down (yet) but it has certainly slowed them down - and they have got to show something in Iraq or they're going to lose too much in the long run.
Threatening holy sites only inflames the entire region - it actually would make it easier for the terrorists to operate (you don't send cops to crackdown on popular heroes if you want to not have a major insurrection on your hands). Whereas, the real threat, even unspoken, of invasion/annihilation of a nation-state has a real chilling effect on the willingness of rulers to tolerate terrorists inside their borders.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

If the US was dead serious about doing this and actuaslly goes through with it, it will prove that their god is a worthless piece of imaginative brain farting. Of course I think the same thing woud happen to Jerusalem. I say Nuke the whole Middle east till it becomes a sea of glass, then start all over.

[Meh_Gerbil]

If the US was dead serious about doing this and actuaslly goes through with it, it will prove that their god is a worthless piece of imaginative brain farting. Of course I think the same thing woud happen to Jerusalem. I say Nuke the whole Middle east till it becomes a sea of glass, then start all over.

Whoa -- we agree!

[Piebald]

Rev 4:6 And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind.

[Meh_Gerbil]

Rev 4:6 And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind.

Psst... just between you and me it is weird that the Bible talks about so much of the earth being destroyed by heat -- isn't that a bit odd?

[Blemonds]

If the US was dead serious about doing this and actuaslly goes through with it, it will prove that their god is a worthless piece of imaginative brain farting.

Don't people like you spend a lot of energy telling us that the US is not a Christian nation, in other words, the U.S, acoording to you and others, has no God?

[Blemonds]

Emotionally appealing - but seriously flawed.
The problem with MAD - the problem most likely to have caused an escalation - was that it relies on the sanity of the other side.

You make a good point. MAD worked with the Soviet Union, but the terroists are neither rational nor sane. So why wait for them to attack first. Maybe we should just go ahead and nuke Mecca and send a message. Since it will create a firestorm, we might as well nuke Iran and Syria while we're on a roll and put the rest of the muslim terrorists on notice. Pain and death really seems to be the only thing they comprehend

[Cu Mhorrigan]

No, I said that Christianity is NOT the Official religion of the United States. I also said thaqt Christians should Not force their religious beliefs down our throats. I am a Polytheist not an Atheist.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Whoa -- we agree!

Do you feel tainted by the cold perverse touch of Evil yet?

[Nicholas]

I said it would be a dangerously unwise decision to make. Suggesting that nuking Mecca will put an end to terrorism makes about as much sense as suggesting that we drop a nuke on the Vatican to stop certain preists from molesting children.