Mutually Assured Destruction and Why It No Longer Applies (Vanity)

7/14/2006 | Me

[Political Junkie Too]

What happened to the idea that if Iran attacked Israel or the West with nuclear weapons, we would obliterate Mecca in retaliation? Wasn't the idea that we would be encouraging the rest of the Muslim world to keep Iran in line because it would be THEIR Holy Shrine that's at risk?

Is the opinion that the Muslim "street" would side with Iran if such a thing happened, that these formerly "reformed" Muslims would forget all of their modernization and return to their Jihadist roots to revenge Iran?

-PJ

[SauronOfMordor]

Former FReeper Wretchard had a similar observation some years ago, in the context of “What happens if terrorists get nukes?”

Three Conjectures

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2003/09/three-conjectures-pew-poll-finds-40-of.html?m=1

Key bit:

“The so-called strengths of Islamic terrorism: fanatical intent; lack of a centralized leadership; absence of a final authority and cellular structure guarantee uncontrollable escalation once the nuclear threshold is crossed. Therefore the ‘rational’ American response to the initiation of terrorist WMD attack would be all out retaliation from the outset. “