Would Islamists be deterred from a nuclear attack (once they get it) if they knew that the West would nuke to oblivion alll of Mecca if they attacked first?
2007-02-10 05:17:07 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
We suffered 9/11, a terrorist attack and went onto Iraq. Did it deter terrorist incidents around the world against the West around the world? No, on the contrary, the unilateral (vs UN sanctioned) invasion provoked more attacks, albeit non-nuclear so far. The continued rhetoric of Bush did not have any effect thus far, and Iran is certainly snubbing. What would more rhetoric like your suggestion do? Besides, where do you think Mecca is? It's not even in a country that is that hostile to the west, and not one owning nuclear weapon! It doesn't make sense.
Think of an approach where the nuclear owning entity have more to lose than gain, and what is their to lose is what is important to them, not to the West. Terrorist and the West just do not treat the same thing with equal importance. Life for one. The West treat life being important where the terrorist wouldn't mind sacrificing their lives to kill.
2007-02-10 05:35:19 · answer #1 · answered by ele81946 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. You have to understand their value system. If they have a war and are not TOTALLY wiped out and can come back another day, they consider that a win.
Ask any Egyptian who won the 1973 War. They will tell you Egypt did. Why? Because they lost very little in the war and they are still around. What they did lose, Israel gave back.
Ask any Muslim who won the recent war between Israel and Hezbollah.. They will tell you Hezbollah did even though for every IDF soldier killed, Hezbollah lost 100. Why? Because they are still around.
That is why when Iran says Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth, it should be taken seriously. They did not call for a change in government, they called for the total destruction of Israel. And that is in keeping with their belief system.
So threatening them with harm will not phase them in the least. If they are not totally wiped out, they will consider they won. They will come back again and again and again. Like they did with Israel. 1948. 1956. 1967. 1973. The Lebanon War. The Intifada. The war with Hezbollah.
This is something those of us in the West do not understand.. We will fight a war, the enemy will "give in" and then when we back off, the enemy gives problems later on.
Look at Korea. We did not finish that war...and now we have problems with them and their new nuclear power.
Look at Vietnam. We did not finish that war...and now South Vietnam is no more.
Look at the Gulf War. We left Saddam in power and the Republican Guard intact and had 10 years of the "NO FLY ZONE" crap.
Look at this war. We are once again about to pull out without a clear win. Those opposed to the USA will declare they won and we will have more problems down the road.
The only way to win against an enemy like that is the next time they attack, WIPE THEM OUT.....
2007-02-10 15:48:44 · answer #2 · answered by forgivebutdonotforget911 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
to boot to what others have already suggested about this no longer being a lot of a deterrent to radical Islam, there is yet another issue in utilising this variety of ultimatim. it might properly be used through anti-Muslim people as a attitude to eliminating Mecca. i can envision a very actual-wing American detonating a bomb in l. a., rationalizing it through wondering that there are not any solid people in l. a. besides, and then utilising the explosion as a technique to goad the U. S. into attacking Mecca. i love your strategic wondering, besides the undeniable fact that. and that i have been given a kick out of your question.
2016-12-04 00:12:20 · answer #3 · answered by england 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
probably not.
since mecca is in saudi arabia, which is a sunni nation, and their enemies are shiite, i don't see how this could help.
unless you consider a shiite nuclear strike on america a good idea...
2007-02-10 05:43:41 · answer #4 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no .. because IF there was a nuclear terrorist attack it will have been funded and planned by some other govt that actually has nukes ...
2007-02-10 05:23:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Escalation of the violence and world-wide instability would ensue...that's my guess. It's hard to make rational sense of people who are irrational from the get go.
2007-02-10 05:46:19 · answer #6 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because morons like al-Qaeda do not care about religion. They WANT to fomet hatred between others.
2007-02-10 05:36:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well that assumes you are dealing with people who have a bit of common sense doesn't it?
2007-02-10 05:23:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you are talking the terrorists, no. They could give a dried figleaf either way.
2007-02-10 05:22:30 · answer #9 · answered by diogenese19348 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋