[moondoggie]

LOL...well, I did flunk Geography 101.

I was "thinking" of the mideast in general and the fall-out from nukes in the area which would disrupt our oil supply.

Now that I've read some of your posts...nobody seems to be all that concerned about it.

[Das Outsider]

Now that I've read some of your posts...nobody seems to be all that concerned about it.

Wrong again. The first thing that comes to my mind when we talk about ANY nuclear detonation above ground is radiation. MOABs will work just fine--anything over 5 tons, really. Daisy Cutters left more than a few craters in Afghanistan.

We don't have to go nuclear; that's too messy. It's the fact that Tancredo said that if the U.S. was hit by a devastating attack from Islamic--yes, Islamic--terrorists, then we might want to consider returning the "love" and directing it at Mecca.

Like this: You take one of our cities, we take one of yours. The idea is attractive to quite a few because they understand that the people we are fighting ARE Muslims, and that they don't play by the rules. I don't think the administration would even put the new "nuclear" option on the table anyway--even in the event of a nuclear attack.