NUKING MECCA A Republican has called for nuking Mecca if al-Qaeda attacks the United States again. A few years ago, Rich Lowry made a similar suggestion. A number of my "Republican" friends have privately advocated this strategy as a remedy to The Virus (Islam). Actually this sentiment is not all that unusual if you follow the theory of deterrence in international relations. As al-Qaeda is an extra-territorial organization -- a "non-state actor" -- IR theorists worry that we've entered a new, more dangerous era where our Cold War worldview won't help policymakers. In other words, one state can't just threaten to retaliate against an organization that doesn't occupy a certain territory in order to deter the launching of attacks. Threatening to "nuke Mecca" is the only viable "solution" to the deterrence puzzle.

It makes interesting coffee shop talk for professors and grad students with little else to do, but from a libertarian perspective, I think we should actually be less worried than before. In recent history, it's States that have inflicted the greatest toll on human civilization, not murderous, roaming gangs. And how can a roaming gang achieve that level of death and destruction without legitimately extracting resources at gunpoint from a defined territory?

But, don't misunderstand: the theory of deterrence in general is disgusting, immoral and perverse. It's just that plenty of intellectuals, politicains and public figures support the theory as a guide for interstate relations, why abandon it now in the face of The Virus? Surely thousands of innocent Muslims should pay the price for the actions of a criminal gang, right?

It's tragic that proponents of such a theory, which amounts to advocating mass murder, are allowed to operate freely in the public sphere with our tacit respect and without ridicule.