There is no historical evidence to back up such an assertion. It is pure conjecture.
The number was not important, but between just Stalin and Hitler alone, most historians would put that number at over 50 million. I am not sure what the point was in arguing about what the number is. It is unimportant to the discussion.
It is far more dangerous because it is a religion...
How does that make a difference? I hope you're not implying that religion has any more culpability in promoting violence than any other factor. That is a canard that can easily be refuted.
Religion more than an ideology can make people act irrationally. When you have a religion as Islam where it's mission it to convert people or kill them, it is more dangerous than any ideology I know of. When you have about of quarter of the world who claim that as a religion, you have the recipe for disaster. I think it is naive to think otherwise
The vast majority are decent folk, but when religion is involved, even the slightest incident can turn most decent folk into something very dangerous.
Evidence? Once again, this is wild conjecture based on a popular but false notion that religion causes violence.
No evidence?!?!? I guess Islam having about 1500 history of fighting wars whose sole purpose is to advance their religion isn't evidence enough. I don't think religion inherently causes wars. Religions such as Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc. are capable of having peaceful co-existence with other religions. A fundamentalist Muslim who takes his/her religion as it is written, can not. Islam is inherently a religion of war.
Once Islamic controlled countries get nuclear weapons, the world will be a very different place.
How so? Will they suddenly have the abilities, namely delivery systems and consistent weaponry, that most of the rest of the nuclear club does not?
You assume it requires a missile-based delivery system. We can not even prevent 20 million people from crossing our borders. There is no reason to believe that we can stop someone who is determined to get nuclear weapons into this country from doing so. Even so, it will only take a few more Clintons or Carters and Islamic countries will have deliver systems.
I was referring to your assertion that Islam will dwarf the number. There is no historical evidence to support that. The Islamic conquests of Europe and Mesopotamia were relatively bloodless.
Religion more than an ideology can make people act irrationally.
Once again, that is conjecture based on a popular myth. There is no historical evidence to support that argument.
I guess Islam having about 1500 history of fighting wars whose sole purpose is to advance their religion isn't evidence enough. I don't think religion inherently causes wars. Religions such as Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc. are capable of having peaceful co-existence with other religions.
Well first, that is patently untrue. Islam's history is no more violent than Christendom's. Second, the conquests of the Ottoman Turks and the Moores were more about territory than religion. Any number of generals and warlords have claimed religion in their banner, but religion usually has little to do with the fight. You might as well blame economics since it has a far bloodier history than religion.
We can not even prevent 20 million people from crossing our borders.
Indeed, and all of our interventionism in the Middle East doesn't seem to have changed that fact a bit, has it? Even worse, this neocon President seems to have facilitated that condition. In any case, the myth of the "suitcase nuke" has been adequately debunked elsewhere and is nothing but a fairy tale to frighten children and excite Hollywood producers.
As usual, it is always best to use history as our guide in geopolitical situations and it tells us there is no chance that any sovereign nation can be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons once it is determined to do so. That leaves us only with the option of invasion and occupation, making us no better than any other thug regime who has gone before us.