"...it would still take a lot of nukes and, after the first one, the rest would need to be carried by missles because there is no way they would make it over the border, mainly because all the muslims in this country would be dead or in "internment camps."
I wish I could be as certain as you are that the US would even have the will to retaliate for such a strike. I don't. In this last election New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C. all went for the Democrat ass. And these were places that actually experienced many deaths at the hands of the mad Moslem murderers among us.
FWIW
Ezekiel 39:6
I will send fire on Magog and on those who live in safety in the coastlands, and they will know that I am the LORD .
spot on => given the mentally of the skedaddle crowd we have now making noise, it's doubtful that we'll have the will to use nukes. Heck, before Pearl Harbor attack, the majority of Americans were quite opposed to getting involved in Europe's mess. That attituded changed quite rapidly after December 7. Unfortunately, we didn't see the same move to "get the job done" after 9/11. Since then, and inreasingly so of late, we've had to endure lengthy tomes on "how US is cause of problem" and how we need to "listen to what the freedom fighters are really saying."
Unless there is one helluva silent majority in the land, I say NYC or Washington DC have 3 years to go, and I'm leaning toward DC being the next target of choice by the pious terrorists. My gut says they'll want to send message that even w/ Bush, we're not safe => help to maximize terror, even if they only get off a dirty bomb.
Tough times made more troubling by Kennedy and his ilk than Osama and Zarqawi.
A nuke in the center of NYC would set us back about 20 years economically. As long as we leave our borders open, we are at risk.
Of course, a nuke in NYC would get rid of a lot of leftists, on the upside.