I don't think so. Think of whatever place/symbol means the most to you, and then consider your response if it should be destroyed by a nuke.
Are you going to be "shaken," or are you gonna go looking for blood?
My money is on the latter. And so is bin Laden's.
They're already "looking for blood." The more innocent, the better.
Besides all this, what wrong with Holy payback for blowing up the giant Buddhas in Afghanistan? In Judeo-Christian belief, this kind of attachment to physical objects borders on idol worship.
Are you going to be "shaken," or are you gonna go looking for blood?
I think I would feel like a fool for supporting an impotent god.
And don't think this strategy hasn't been used by Muslims already. Many mosques are built on the foundations of what were the holy sites of other religions. And they did that to make a point.
And it worked.
The middle east used to full of small religions similar to Judaism. Where are they now? The decendents of those believers are now praying to Allah.
Muslims apparently believe that men can destroy their most holy book, the Koran.
The true God has protected the bible over the centuries, and it is not man who protected it.
Mustn't anger them.
You're right on that one.
Which is why I think the idea of nuking just Mecca would not work.
It needs to be broader.
Remember the Cold War? Do you think that at the height of the Cold War, that the Russian military would have thought twice if our MAD policy was to nuke only Moscow?
No, they would have thought it an acceptable loss for the conquest of Western capitalism.
And the same goes for the Islamofascists. Losing Mecca is an acceptable loss for a world caliphate.
Now, if we were to consider nuking all the major Islamofascist population centers as a new MAD doctrine...
I think that only then would the Islamofascists pause to consider.