[HitmanLV]

This response I keep on reading on FR is tiresome.

The US could suffer 3 small nuclear blasts in 3 major cities, for example, say in the 1kt range. The devestation would be astonishing and tragic. The act would be criminal and insane.

The US would not respond by nuking any holy city or holy site, sorry. Keep that type of talk in barrooms and taverns across the fruited plain, after a few drinks. Most people favor a sober response.

I can't see how any rational person would advocate the destruction of holy cities in response to the behavior of a well heeled, dedicated, and outlaw fringe group that identifies itself with the religion of the holy cities.

Frankly that kind of talk is disgusting. It's certainly not conservative. The US will not use nukes, even in response to a limited nuclear hit stateside (as I described). eleiving anything else is denial and adolescent posturing, akin to the exaggerated machismo, chest-beating, and arrogance of some of our most extreme Muslim critics.

It;s not productive. It's not mature. It's not realistic. There is no logical, rational, and moral nexus to respond by immediately destroying Mecca and Medina.

Thank goodness people who think like that aren't in power.

[Mr. Mojo]

I can't see how any rational person would advocate the destruction of holy cities

Who said anything about holy cities? I said "Mecca and Medina." ;)

Btw, you're in for a rude awakening (if we're hit with nukes).