Well, that is what Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo from Colorado said. From the AP, via CNN.com:

Talk show host Pat Campbell asked the Littleton Republican how the country should respond if terrorists struck several U.S. cities with nuclear weapons

“Well, what if you said something like — if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites,” Tancredo answered.

“You’re talking about bombing Mecca,” Campbell said.

“Yeah,” Tancredo responded.

The congressman later said he was “just throwing out some ideas” and that an “ultimate threat” might have to be met with an “ultimate response.”

Ok, so he is a bit over the top, but he raises an interesting point. Not about bombing Mecca, but about how to respond to a nuclear attack.

How would the U.S. respond to an attack? If the attack was initiated by a particular country, the answer should be a no brainer: You nuke that country to the Stone Age. At least that is how it is supposed to work. Sometimes I fear we lack the courage to do such a thing. A terrible, overwhelming, over the top response is required for such an event. There is no room for restraint or tempered measures. No, you just lost a few million people. Time to make the other guy lose 50 to 60 million. Would that mean innocent men, women and children would be killed? Yes, but that is life. We would have just lost a few million of our own innocent men, women and children. If you do not respond forcefully enough, the rest of the world will see that you lack the courage to strike back. Making a future attack all the more likely. For more an essay I wrote about this, see here.

But…

How do you respond to a terrorist attack using nukes? Most likely there will not be a state sponsor to go after. The nukes will probably be purchased on the black market. Old Soviet stuff or maybe one of the shiny new North Korean nukes reportedly floating around. Either way, what do you do? How do you respond?

I think the Congressman has an interesting point. During the Cold War days, both sides knew that if either side launched then the other would wipe out all the attackers cities, cultural centers, etc. It was known. Maybe making known how we would respond would finally provoke the “Moderate” Muslim community into action against those who have defiled their religion. Make it an official position of the United States that if we are attacked with nuclear weapons and it is proven that radical group XYZ was behind the attack, then we will wipe out Cities A, B and C or Holy Sites 1, 2 and 3. The short term political fallout would be rough, but the long term benefits may be worthwhile.

After all, if Bin Laden had known that the official position of the U.S. was to go after countries that are proven to support terrorists, would he have been so quick to bomb the U.S.? I do not know. But he did state that he felt we were weak and that we would not respond. So making our intentions known may make our enemy think twice. If we launch a nuclear counterstrike, all the talking heads and enemy sympathizers will be wailing and gnashing their teeth, but we will be able to point out that we warned our enemy. But they ignored the warning and so now must pay the price.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?