*****You’re the one that’s being ‘silly’ — first, you assume that there would only one WMD attack at a time, when 9/11 and the history of Al Qaeda attacks shows that they prefer multiple mass-casualty attacks simultaneously if/when they can pull it off (they would try to make their 1st WMD onslaught the worst thing in history, not wait for our response). 2nd, what if we truly have no idea “which country is most responsible” -— 3rd, once Al Qaeda or any similar group had acquired such capabilities, the idea that having any one (or more) Middle Eastern countries “wiped off the map” (even if we would do it, which is doubtful) would solve the problem is naive — if we imagine a much larger and more dangerous Al Qaeda (or similar group) burrowed into many countries around the world due to liberal/libertarian resistance to rooting them out, then having one or any number of Middle Eastern countries “wiped off the map” is no longer going to solve the problem. Finally, our response depends a lot upon who is in the WH and Congress in the future, but I would not take it for granted that we would be allowed to “go Roman” on entire countries or why that would even solve the problem once terrorism had gotten to such a bad point.*****
It took N. Korea how long to get the bomb? Iran might have the bomb in 5+ years. Yet you expect the “terrorists” to come up with multiple bombs and be able to set them off in the US at the same time. The technology and mechanics of making a A bomb have been around for a long time, but it is still a very difficult thing to do and requires a lot of precision equipment and parts.
9/11 was a fluke. Even the Empire State building, built in the late 1920’s-30’s was designed to withstand a hit by the air craft of its time. And, as I recall, an air plane did crash into it at one time. The World Trade buildings were designed to withstand a hit by the aircraft of the time it was built. However, the upper super structure of the buildings did not have their supporting super structure heat proofed because the government had outlawed the use of asbestos when that part was going up.
***Your argument (so far as I can tell) has the structure of “we can act as Ron Paul recommends now because if things got so bad that terrorists nuked NYC, well THEN we could get serious and one or more Middle Eastern countries would be “wiped off the map” — I’d prefer not to wait for that extreme situation to deal more effectively with terrorism, thank you.****
Only problem is that our present way of dealing with the problem is not that effective. Al Qaeda is still about as strong or stronger than it used to be. Our occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan have been an important recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Look at how long the British were fighting the IRA. Look at how long the Israeli’s and the Palestinians have been fighting. Do we really want to commit to a 40-50 year occupation of Iraq?
In the meantime, the government will be looking to take more and more of our liberties in the name of security.