Monday, July 18, 2005


The story of Tancredo and his comments on NUKING MECCA in response to a nuclear attack on America is now making its way around the MSM and filtering back thru the blogosphere. What I don't get is: What the hell is so wrong about this type of proposed response? Bloggers from all over the political spectrum seem to be agreeing that "there is no place for this type of talk of retaliation in modern America".

Come on guys... Are you kidding? Kos... OK, I figured that you wouldn't understand this. But the Captain? Are you serious El-Cap i tan? If this is not an appropriate response to this type of attack, what is? What would you do? If we don't start thinking about this now, we won't know what to do when it actually happens...

I speculated on this way back in December when the thought occured to me... what if? What if those throat-cutting bastards did manage to nuke one of our cities? What would an appropriate response be? In January, Jack Wheeler speculated that Mecca could actually be Bin Laden's achilles heal. Is the reason why Al-Qaeda have not yet launched a nuke attack because Bush has made it known (thru un-official channels of course) that if a nuke goes off in America, Mecca will be obliterated? Could be.

Bottom line: The only appropriate response to a nuke attack within our borders, is a retaliatory nuclear strike. There is no other option. The only question should be, where should the strike take place. If we take the nuke strike option off the table, it will only encourage rogue states (read: N. Korea, China, Iran, etc.) to give nukes to terrorists, and have those terrorists use them against US. Without fear of a reciprocal attack, these countries will be MORE likely to engage in this type of activity... not less. By having the threat out there, however crazy it may seem, we put those countries and terrorists on notice. If they use nukes on us, they can count on nukes being used against their people. Period.