While Tom Tancredo is, as Noah claims, likely trying to get attention for his flagging campaign, I think it is way below the belt and demonstrates a level of naivete on the part of Noah by assigning the label of "imbecilic bigot" to Tancredo.

Consider this: Was it irrational or immoral to train the USA's nukes on the entire population of Moscow or the great cathedrals of Leningrad during the Cold War? The answer is NO, it was not really a very 'moral' thing to do, but it was a powerful, effective deterrent. And that's Tancredo's point, the U.S. needs a deterrent that is meaningful.

And while it would be a failure of humanity if it came down to destroying Mecca, and it while it would be an unfortunate 'punishment' for a lot of innocent muslims, the group of reactionary suicide bombers WOULD be deterred.

That's one thing about Arabic/Mideast/Muslim culture, they really are much more conformist and NEED the approval of the mainstream than any Westerner can even understand. They really don't want to be seen as being responsible for Mecca's demise.

The whole point is NOT to carry out the deterrent threat. Do you really think even the most hawkish general in the pentagon wanted to nuke every single woman and child in Moscow? The point is to DETER bad things from happening anywhere.

Oh, and by the way, the US was victorious in the Cold War with that same morally questionable strategy.

As far as the label "imbecilic bigot" goes, I am hard pressed to disagree. If Tancredo doesn't really mean his threats, and is just using them to help his campaign, that bespeaks a very manipulative, ruthless, and dare I say evil persona underneath. Promising pork-barrel spending for one's congressional district is one thing. Talking about nuking Mecca is quite another.

As for the comparison with the Cold War, I would say indeed use of nuclear weapons would have been quite immoral, regardless of the circumstances. Threatening to use them might have been a different matter, but that is another debate for another day. However, the situation isn't at all analogous as you wish to paint it.

In the case of the Cold War, there was a clearly defined state enemy who would immediately be known as the aggressor. The defining relationship of the U.S. and the Soviet Union was Mutually Assured Destruction-that in the case of nuclear war, both sides would be utterly destroyed. The point of balance was to create no doubt on that issue. The aggressor could not be hidden and would not escape his actions. Indeed, as you noted, the purpose of nuclear weapons was that they would never be used.

The problem with Tancredo's idea, is precisely that there is no enemy outside of a diverse group of nutjobs with no real organizational structure. In the case of a major attack, one would likely not be able to identify the aggressor or even find him. He would not be headquartered in any major city or have any major governmental allies. He has no major assets to nuke. No balance is achieved-just mass murder on both sides. Both sides could have a nuclear exchange and still stand-unless of course, you want to nuke the whole world?

So what would nuking Mecca accomplished?

Jack Shit. Mass murder. Anger all over the world. Perhaps a confrontation with Russia and China. One would scarcely be able to utter the name "America" for a hundred years or more without spitting cursing it. Do you want America to be the most reviled country in history? I thought not.

It is quite a cavalier attitude that Americans have towards death. Let us hope for everyone's sake that they change it soon.

"That's one thing about Arabic/Mideast/Muslim culture, they really are much more conformist and NEED the approval of the mainstream than any Westerner can even understand. They really don't want to be seen as being responsible for Mecca's demise."

I really am at a loss for words, I don't quite no where to begin. It is taking every ounce of willpower I have to beat back a fit of rage. Precisely what is the basis of that statement? Are you really trying to tell me that Arab, Middle Eastern, and Muslim cultures are the same? Do Malaysia and Egypt have the same culture? What about Iran and Dearborn, Michigan? How about Israel and Turkey? If you want to sound intelligent, the first thing you need to learn is that not all darkies who talk funny are the same. Smart racists know that they have to differentiate between the different breeds of Untermensch. For example-Arabs are lazy Muslims blow themselves up, South Asians don't bathe, my people (Germans) are warlike and have a psychological need to be ordered about. Seriously, I didn't know it was possible to be too dumb to be racist. I stand corrected.

So where does this need to conform come from? Is it genetic? What chromosome is that gene found on? Please tell me.

This slander is common in every country in every war. Americans were told during the World Wars that Germans had a need for war in their very blood and couldn't be free. We were told the Vietnamese would learn to be civilized from us, that our "little brown brothers" in the Philippines needed to be under military occupation. Remember, those damn Malaysians/Algerians/Philippin­os/Vietnamese/Mexicans/Haitian­s etc. will tear each other part in sectarian violence the second our noble troops leave.

It is a lie. The darkies have no cultural need that "the West" can't understand to be mainstream. If I had to bet, I would say that you are woefully deficient in your knowledge of history. I'd love to get in this debate with you. We'll see who actually understands something about human civilization, and who is just a post-colonial imperialist wanting to "pacify" everyone he thinks is beneath him.

Oh, and by the way, the US was victorious in the Cold War because the Soviet Union collapsed in on itself due to domestic pressures.

Friedcthulhu, you rock :) At least there are a few signs of intelligent life in this chatterbox...

It's not so much the means as the end that's important. If nukes fell in either the cold war or on mecca, many many people will die. It really doesn't matter that perhaps in the cold war, we could pinpoint some definite enemy. The way deterrents work have nothing to do with knowing exactly who to shoot, as long as we're aiming at something they really need. Now, it is speculative whether terrorists actually care about mecca, but if they do as much as it is one of the 5 pillars, then it should be a deterrent, as long as we don't actually shoot-then it would be murder. However, the possibility can be enough.

He's got a point all right, just under his pointed tinfoil hat.

The threat to destroy Mecca might be meaningful if the terrorist threat really was all about religion. It is not. Religion is always leveraged by political leaders attempting to motivate the populace to support violence in the struggle for political dominance. It is not because these leaders actually believe in the religion. It is merely one of many tools used to agitate the commoners toward supporting war and bloodlust.

Bin Laden uses it. GW Bush also does.

Frieddy,

Calm down and dispense the obscenities and name-calling. I'm not American, but funnily enough, I do know how some things in this world work. Have you ever lived in a Muslim country, do you speak Arabic or Urdu or Malay/Indonesian as I do? No, it's not because of some 'conformist gene', it's because of their cultural upbringing, their education, their media, their religion, their societies and their governments.

As far as deterring the Islamist terrorists, they DO revere Mecca regardless of the why or how, and IF that threat were there it would have a strong deterrent effect, regardless of your history, your view of the world or your culture.

Somewhere in Waziristan....Al-Qaida Assemble in their mountain-cave boardroom. Osama Bin Laden sits at the head of the table, and adresses the group.

Osama: Brothers, friends. We have just learned that the insolent americans have adopted a new strategy in our ongoing war...they have threatened to bomb the holy city of Mecca, should we conduct any further operations on their soil!

Gasps echo throughout the cave's darkened corridors.

Al Zawahiri: Impossible! How could such a paper tiger make such a bold, tough threat? Such resolve! What has happened to our inroads with the liberals?

Osama: Alas, our liberal allies have been crushed by an upsurge of patriotism!

Zawahiri: I thought their version of patriotism meant embracing their strange values of universal human rights, and equality and...

Osama: So little you know about America! So little we all knew! Who would have thought they could strike such fear in us! After all, we care more for the true traditions of our religion than our own radical schemes, so we must not let mecca be attacked!

Zawahiri: Remember when the shrine in Samara was destroyed?

Osama: What an american victory that was! Oy! No... we must recall our sleeper cells before they are detected by the congress' latest endorsement of the NSA warrantless wiretapping program!

AQ footsoldier: But sir... perhaps we should use such threats as proof of the enemy's true evil? Perhaps many loyal muslims who would otherwise sympathise with the americans could be turned to our cause if we...

Osama: Fool! Muslims worldwide will positively respect the US for their bold assertiveness! Don't you see that we cannot take such a risk? We must respond logically! Alas, I fear we may never undertake another bombing. How could I, of all people, dare to put innocent muslims at risk for my own personal gain? So what if the US bombed innocent civilians in my home country? We have been deterred! So what if that country, Saudi Arabia, is in fact an ally of the US in their crusade? We have been deterred! So what if a greater clash between our religions and cultures is what Al-Qaida was created to foment?! We, my dear brothers, I regret to inform you, have been ultimately deterred. We must now bear the brutal cacophany as freedom rings throughout the islamic world, for the US, in its terrible wisdom, has threatened to destroy all we hold dear. Why would we not be defeated already?