 Quote:
Originally Posted by hkbajwa  Anyhow in response to the Mecca threat, well you guys are welcome to try, but that is an action that will create 1.2 billion terrorist AND will INEVITABLY unleash nuclear war. Don't forget Pakistan has a nuke, and they have the means to deliver in to the US. EVEN IF the muslim states exhibit such patience that they do not nuke the US, you guys are going to have to look far and wide for a single drop of middle east oil. let's see how much you can squeeze out of alaska.
This suggestion on his part is fabulously ignorant and short sighted. It will ultimately lead to a complete collapse of the US. With no oil, with 1.2 billion people ready to wipe you off the map, and with a nuclear nations among your mortal enemies ( yes they will be mortal enemies) you will essentially have hammered the last nail in your own coffin.
But i am thankful that even Ole Bushy is too smart to talk crap like that. | Of course, bombing Mecca would likely be the worst possible response the US could take regarding an asymetrical Al Qaeda nuclear attack on the US.
And I doubt that such a threat by the US would act as much of a deterent.
I wonder what, however, could be the best response the US could take to such an attack.
Surely, Al Qaeda and other such extremists don't represent the best interests of the Muslim world.
And I would think (perhaps, hope) that the "response" will come from the moderate Muslim world in the sense that they will very actively root out such extremists.
But the US would undoubtedly have to respond, at least in some way, to such an attack.
(I think it is likely that Israel would be attacked with a nukes at the same time as the US or even before the US.) |