No sane country, that's for certain. But when nukes are in the possession of national leaders who believe in stuff like "the returning 12th Imam" and receiving heavenly virgins for killing infidels then we've got a big problem. Obviously we'd win any such war, but at what cost? ...a few major U.S. cities? That's why we can't allow nuclear proliferation in the Muslim world.
First, why can't they risk it if we get a guy like Ron Paul in office? Why would he go to war with them over the mere presence of some "hoodlums and convicts" who dislike our country? I mean, if he were really willing to go to war over that, he'd be advocating war with (for example) Columbia right now. And why would any terrorist expect to be threatened by a guy who didn't want to depose a regime that was harboring, training (including a hijacking school) and funding terrorists?
Second, wouldn't the terrorist problem evaporate the day Paul is inaugurated? I mean, if terrorism is really caused by our foreign policy, we shouldn't ever have to go to war against terrorists under Ron Paul, right?
Sure they can shelter terror groups which do, as long as they hide it better than Afghanistan did. In such cases Ron Paul will be out in the forefront arguing that there is "no link" and "terrorists are just thugs". And states sheltering terror groups is not the only concern; what about supporting them?
The whole point here is that the Ron Paul mindset undermines deterrence entirely. Deterrence is about making credible threats to respond to attack. Ron Paul is essentially telegraphing to any potential enemies that if they hide their connection to an attack well enough, he'll look the other way.