If practitioners of the Religion of Peace did set off a nuclear bomb in the US, thus destroying one of our major cities and killing millions, why shouldn't we then respond in such a way?
If that ever happens, then we would be in a whole other level of nightmare, and a response in kind would be legitimate.
Perhaps we survived the Cold War based upon the time-proven deterrence of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)
If we are unwilling to target at the same level of collateral damage as the Islamofacists, then they will by default defeat us.
If however President Bush were to come forward, and simply state. "Enough is enough. We will not tolerate threats against American cities. If any attack occurs on American soil, our list of targets is as follows.
1. Nuclear attack of suspected Bin-Laden Hideout.
2. Next, key cities known to be hot-beds of Islamofacists.
3. Highly visible targets, of public knowledge. (Holy Sites)
(1) I find it hard to believe that terrorists have nuclear devices and they have not yet used them anywhere.
(2) No nuclear device they are capable of deploying could kill millions.
A dirty bomb, perfectly deployed, would probably be less lethal than 9/11.
(3) Nuking Mecca in response to a dirty bomb would result in (a) the complete and total ostracism of the US by every other nation in the world and (b) would be the catalyst of bin Laden's dream - it would probably result in Taliban-style governments overthrowing every secular Muslim state and would unify all the squabbling Arab governments against the US.
It would be a enormous strategic blunder.
The rational response to a dirty bombing would be a large-scale partial deportation of Muslims from the US and the swift execution of thousands of radical Muslim activists.
Perhaps it would be prudent to take preemptive action...Why let them shoot first?
In the wild west you touch ur gun u better be ready to pull trigger....