Oh, I'm not speaking against a nuclear approach. When I say I'm not part of the "nuke 'em all" crowd, I mean I'm not part of that small but vocal group of Freepers who think our only hope is to just send the nukes flying right now.
Can MAD work with Islam? Well, those of us who believe in the trheat often say that at least 10% of them are al-Qaeda sympathizing radicals, which means an aenemy force of 100 million. But if the Osama radicals are vastly in the minority (10, 20 or 30% of Muslims) then they can be "outvoted" by the rest of them with the right motivation. For example, if the people of Iran were told, "If you develop an operational nuke we will make nuclear wa on your country immediately," they might have a revolt.
This is all dengerous stuff, but then again, human civilization is endangered at this moment. We need to press forward on all fronts, from military to cultural, and an atomic powered Big Stick may solve the problem or buy us time to get other methods to work.
I don't think MAD will work with islam. It might cool the jets of the responsible leaders of the region, if there are any. I am thinking of the Saudis and the Pakis. Both these regimes are encouraging and financing the radical elements. They are going to pay dearly for that folly. As for the Iranian leadership, I think Amadiniwhackjob's basic policy is to actually start a nuclear war. What do you do with that other than a pre-emptive strike?
What percentage of moslems are "radical elements"? Who knows? Did we ask in WW II which percentage of the German nation were Nazi's? Nope. We didn't care. Victory was the only option, and it was pursued with vigor. What percentage of the populations of Hiroshima and Nagisaki were supportive of the Japanese warlords? That question never came up. The policy-makers didn't care. The goal was victory. Incinerating two cities was the last step to the goal.
Personally, I don't care how many of these people are against us. The future without victory is too difficult to contemplate.