[MadIvan]

There are two further reasons why this scenario doesn't work - it assumes a traditional war between Islam and the West. We know for a fact that the Islamists are cowards - they won't fight soldiers directly, at best they'll do hit and run raids, and they'll victimise women and children on airplanes. Secondly, this also assumes that the Shia and Sunni have patched up their differences to the point where they're not fighting each other any longer. Unlikely.

Regards, Ivan

[Mr. Silverback]

You're probably right, but consider this:

1. What we're seeing here in the U.S. with our immigration debacle and in France with the '05 and '06 riots is that the wimpified West doesn't need an actual, credible threat. Our legislators are sucking their thumbs in a fetal position over a few lost votes, and France's leaders are caving in to rioters who should have been shot on day two.

2. If you were a coward who wanted to kill infidels and terrify those who survived into submission, what would your dream weapon be? A nuclear weapon. And the jihadis are about to get them...

[NeonKnight]

There are two further reasons why this scenario doesn't work - it assumes a traditional war between Islam and the West. We know for a fact that the Islamists are cowards - they won't fight soldiers directly, at best they'll do hit and run raids, and they'll victimise women and children on airplanes. Secondly, this also assumes that the Shia and Sunni have patched up their differences to the point where they're not fighting each other any longer. Unlikely.

Agreed, especially not in the next few months or years, as implied in the story. I can see parts of Europe being Arabized, but not in the next couple of years.

Whatever course the near future takes, the Americans still have one hell of a standing army. I don't think a few WMD strikes on American targets is going to change that fact.