[Ronin]

As attractive as the fantasy of nuking Mecca is, and I admit, sometimes it is damned appealing, it won't happen -- not even if the terrorists take out New York completely.

Even if he wanted to, I don't even think Bush could do it. Our strategic arms command and control is not the "open briefcase, push button" fantasy of fiction writers. It's just not the way Americans do things.

There are sure to be safeties in place to prevent unauthorized launches and any launch order coming from the President is going to have to be justifiable in terms of immediate threat. Mecca is not a threat to anyone.

Israel might do it. If it ever looked like the Iranians or the Pakistanis were getting ready to make good on their threat to take out Tel Aviv, they might make it clear that the cost would be Mecca, but not the U.S.

Unfortunately, the terrorists know it.

[knarf]

"As attractive as the fantasy of nuking Mecca is, and I admit, sometimes it is damned appealing, it won't happen -- not even if the terrorists take out New York completely."

Is anyone doing a Hillary! watch?

[Physicist]

As attractive as the fantasy of nuking Mecca is, and I admit, sometimes it is damned appealing, it won't happen

Let's hope not. How stupid would it be to burn the trump card?

If worse really came to worst--an all-out war between the West and Islam--we'd capture Mecca and Medina. The Muslims are required to visit Mecca. Destroying it would only frustrate them. If instead they had to obtain American permission to perform the Hajj, you can bet that they'd smile past American checkpoints rather than risk being sent home unhajjed. And attacks against Americans would be few and far between if they knew that it would result in a loss of access to Islam's holy sites.

If there's a major attack against America, the smoothest course would be to foment an Islamic revolution in Saudi Arabia. Then, of course, we'd have no choice but to send troops to "stabilize the situation"--and since the Iraq war, we have just the materiel in place to do it.

[Master Zinja]

Mecca is not a threat to anyone.

No, Mecca isn't a threat. However, if these people wish to carry out a "holy war", then they must understand that there will be casualties of a holy nature. Hence, Mecca disappears.

The destruction of Mecca may force the average law-abiding muslim into action to overthrow their governments that sponsor terrorism. Or it may turn all of them against us. Either way, nothing will be the same again if we are forced to vaporize their holy city.

Whatever happens, they must be forced to understand that we will stop at nothing to achieve victory. So far, we have restrained ourselves to an incredible degree. That will change with the loss of a city.

Remember: we lost 2500 people - only 48 of whom were civilians - at Pearl Harbor. As a result, we fought Japan for 3 1/2 years and vaporized two of their cities. On 9/11, we lost 3000 - almost all civilians, including women and children - and as yet have not taught the Muslim world the lesson we taught Japan. Personally, I don't think I would have had the courage Bush had to not launch a nuclear strike.

[Prodigal Son]

There are sure to be safeties in place to prevent unauthorized launches and any launch order coming from the President is going to have to be justifiable in terms of immediate threat. Mecca is not a threat to anyone.

Realistically, I think what would have to happen is that Congress would have to pass the measure as an official government policy. More as a deterrent than anything else. But if Congress were to come out and pass a measure that stated that the President was authorized to use all the weapons at his disposal- including nukes- against all targets, including symbolic ones, it would have a dramatic effect. I believe it would anyway. You might have to pick a target in the middle of the Sahara, far away from anything and let off a tactical nuke, just to demonstrate that you are capable of doing it but I believe it would definitely have an impact.

[John W]

"There are sure to be safeties in place to prevent unauthorized launches and any launch order coming from the President is going to have to be justifiable in terms of immediate threat."

How would these "safeties" work in your mind?A JAG officer sitting by the President and signing off?A "distinguished" triumverate of say,M. Gorbachov,Jimmy Carter and Kofi Annan required to agree?I just don't see it your way,unless you simply mean the President would have to justify his actions after the fact,that is obvious.

[freeangel]

But mecca is as "symbolic" to these idiots as New york was to them. If "symbolic" is all they understand, then perhaps a "symbolic" reaction to to such an act of terror might be what is needed.