It will be bad. It will be very bad. Living in Denver, I might not see the results (on the other hand, this is fly-over country).

But, what it will do is eliminate the threat.

The Bush Doctrine is all well and good (it's basically nation-toppling followed by nation-building, which is why it baffles me that the Left doesn't support it), but we'll revert immediately back to WWII era "beat them till they scream for mercy tatics".

Tom Tancredo is NOT my favorite Congress-critter, but he has at least had the guts to mention nuking Mecca and Medina.

We'll do it. (heck, we've got a lot of ICBMs, how about any city even mentioned in the Koran?) Anyone who dares vote against it will be tossed out of Washington on his/her ass.

I think the important question is: Why will it take such massive destruction for us to realize the threat?

I have no idea. It's obvious to me. It's obvious to the commenters here. It's not obvious, or even explainable, to the Left. I've tried; in writing and in person. It's like talking to a wall.

I don't want nukes going off in America, but I'm resigned to the necessity of it.

Military strength has little to do with it. It is worth very little without cultural self-confidence and the willingness to defend yourself. Right now, we are every day considering things that used to be unthinkable just yesterday. A few commenters here seem to think the destruction of several cities, the loss of millions of citizens and thousands of businesses and the resultant breakdown of internal and global trade would not matter much. Not only is this naive (perhaps you have no memory of a really bad recession). It is amazing that someone would even contemplate this. 3000 military deaths within 3 years are considered evidence of failure, a reason to cut and run. We won´t consider a blockade of Iran because that would mean higher gas prices. But let´s get acquainted with the thought of losing some major cities: We´ll always have Boise! Next to that, delivering Israel to their enemies is a small step, isn´t it? So why not take it?

A current example shows how Europe is taking the lead:

Dutch Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner has refused to backtrack from his assertion that Sharia Law could be introduced to the Netherlands via democratic means.
But he expressed regret the impression has formed he is in favour of the introduction of the Islamic law.
The Minister emphasised that aspects of Sharia law conflict with the Dutch Constitution. But in the theoretical situation that a majority of the Dutch public wanted Sharia Law, the Constitution would have to be altered. This is something he would always work to prevent happening, he said.

Source

But the NVA/VC weren't an existential threat--or, indeed, any threat at all--to the United States. They "defeated" us, in the sense of breaking our will to continue fighting them, to be sure, but that's a whole different issue.

To "defeat" a nation one can simply impact a nation's will, psyche and confidence....incrementally but steadily....and like a termite undermining the structure of a beautiful building, it is not apparent until the damage is severe.

To dismissivly define a threat as non- existential with too narrow a perception of what constitutes 'existential' or a 'threat' is self-deluding. One need not be dead to be broken or defeated.

1993 was, coincidentally, the year of the 1st WTC attack. Though direct al Qaeda involvement hasn't been proven Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who planned the 9/11, is supposed to have provided financial assistance to Ramzi Yousef and his merry band of men.

I don’t think you need to nuke your opponent to win in this conflict, and I think the Wahhabists and other radical Muslims have found that out.

Exactly.

I agree Islamists are unlikely to bomb us out of existence, but in many ways we're just now recovering from 9/11. My firm has cancelled its annual conference every year since 2001. This is the first year Fortune 1000 firms have ponied up travel money - they have been skittish up until now. At the risk of sounding whiny, if they succeed in making it impossible to live life as we have known it for decades, one rather wonders if that isn't, in itself, something of an existential question?

Exactly how are you guys who think this threat is nothing much to worry about going to convince all the people who live in the remaining big cities to stay put? Exactly who is going to take care of the millions of people dead and dying in 3 major US Cities? FEMA? hehe...Who is going to take care of the refugee's who leave the cities and go into the country?

Comparing the Soviets or even the Nazis to the Islamic warriors we fight now is comparing apples to hand-grenades. The Soviets and Nazis didn't want to destroy the world, they wanted to steal it. These fools want to kill us all and those who don't die need to submit.

Yea they don't have thousands of weapons but they have something far more powerful than F-22's and Aircraft Carriers...they have the will to use the weapons they have. We do not. I am unamused by all of this talk that the Islamists are nothing much to worry about. These happy go lucky guys managed to drop two of our most major buildings in the center of our largest city and for an encore managed to successfully attack the Center of our Military headquarters. Only by the actions of some very brave citizens and bad timing did they not hit the capital. Underestimating them seems to be a losing proposition.

I don't think you need to nuke your opponent to win in this conflict, and I think the Wahhabists and other radical Muslims have found that out.

Unlike Stephen Green or James Joyner, I think the threat to the West from Islam is one that is purely of our own making. There is not a single Islamic country that could wage a successful war against the first......

Re modern history - it is not "inconceivable that the Islamists will defeat us militarily." If one side doesn't bother to fight, the other side, no matter how weak, will eventually win by default. Far too much of the US (and essentially all of Europe) still fantasizes that there is no war on. If you won't fight, you can't win.

Now, if we are fighting, that's another matter. The US is very large, decentralized, and durable. We could even lose a good number of cities and most of us would never notice. New York, LA, SF, Boston, Chicago, Atlanta, Washington, Kansas City (!) are not so vital to the country at large as, say, London is to the UK. An Iran with a nuke or two or three can't inflict really serious damage on the US. The converse is not true, at least if the US still has those 50,000 Cold War-era MIRV warheads.

The War on Terror had begun. But America's habits of watching football, reading magazines, and anything other than being engaged as a citizen quickly took back over. We lost focus as a nation. This problem of non-participation by John and Jane Q. Public is the very reason another attack would only galvanize the public a little while longer. Meanwhile, the Islamic "purists" keep planning, waiting, and acting. Over and Over.

The MSM is part of American thought. I wish I could have faith in America as a country to endure and fight. I CERTAINLY DO HAVE faith in our soldiers. But America is drifting slowly to the left. Even 9/11 has not redirected the nation as a whole. Unless there is a major change in the collective psyche, which is produced by what people focus on, which is predominately the MSM in all its forms, I cannot see a final victory.

We almost elected Gore. We almost elected Kerry. We are very close to electing Hillary. These politicians should not have a prayer if the public was awake and paying attention. But, we keep on keeping on.

We loose focus. The terrorists will never loose focus. Unless things change, I am afraid that when the vast majority of Americans wake up from the stupor they seem to be in, we will be in a very different world.

Bubba's Pravda
bubbaspravda.blogspot.com