[PerConPat]

But wouldn't it be cheaper to develop thicker security around our coasts (thus costing and frustrating Iran) and a greater anti-ballistic missile defense for Israel?

I would do all of this. But what can one do to stop a suitcase nuke from coming across a border. I pray to God there's not one here already. We must do everything we can to prevent terrorists from having access to atomic bomb factories.

If there is no direct threat against western Europe, it will continue to blame us, defame us, deflect its problems to us, and give no more than occasional, token assistance.

There already is a direct threat against Europe. In spite of militant Islam's long history of conflict, justified or not, with European powers our former allies cannot see the current danger. Years of stifling socialism and now a low birth rate indicate that Western Europe may be at the beginning of an end.

[familyop]

"Suitcase nukes" have been misrepresented by the media examples. They would be harder to smuggle in than presented, and they wouldn't kill very many people. But a terrorist attack with those against people would certainly make our nation angry.

And yes, there are already several "jihads" in progress against western Europe (e.g., "jihad of words," assassinations, and the like). Just think of how western Europe would react to unreasonable international demands after nukes are aimed at it, though.