Who is going to die?

Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily asks the question: Who do the US go after when (not 'if') terrorists attack with weapons of mass destruction.
Traditional thinking has it that you can't strike back at terrorists because you don't know who they are, or even if you do, where they are, what their home base is, etc.

But this is really not accurate. Terrorists ALWAYS have at least one major sponsor, almost always a nation state but certainly someone you CAN get at. Lybia is a prime example of a country that sponsors just about every terrorist in the world. Or at least, it used to. No one claims to be able to look into the mind of Muammar Ghadafi (Lybia's leader) but somehow the man has changed his terrorist sponsoring ways. He has been bombed many times for his actions, and boycotted almost into bankruptcy. But what's more, the West always KNEW he was behind the Lockerbie bombing, and many other terrorist attacks. The US COULD at any time they chose bomb Lybia out of existence.

And this is what the sponsors of terrorism world wide must be made to realize. Farah thinks so too:

The Islamist world and its allies need to know there will be an unprecedented nuclear response to any attack on the United States with weapons of mass destruction. We don't need to be specific about which major cities and installations will be vaporized. But it needs to be clear that the response will be overwhelming, resulting in far greater death and destruction than what is inflicted upon the United States. We need to let the terrorists know that addresses of response have been determined. Those counseling the terrorists that such an attack on the United States is justified should be among the first to experience the horror.

Farah doesn't get specific, and I understand his reason for avoiding naming names. I need to make no such considerations.

If nineteen Saudi's attacked the US not by flying two airplanes into two skyscrapers but by detonating a small nuclear device on Times Square, Mekka should be made into Earth's largest parking lot. And just to be sure, Qum in Iran should be made a good runner up. Every sponsor (and we KNOW who they are) should have a sword of Damocles hanging over their head.

Do they really want to see their cities vaporized? Do they really want to see their religious centers destroyed? Do they really want to see adherents to their ideology and their faith killed in massive numbers as a direct result of their actions?

It's time for our intelligence networks to get busy on identifying the targets of retaliation. They should be numerous. They should be chosen wisely to ensure that as many as possible of the Islamist ideologues and the false prophets of death are killed. They should be chosen to ensure that, if the unthinkable happens, at least it will mean an end to this war. The targets should be chosen to inflict so much death and destruction that this evil ideology we face can never recover.

I think Farah is right. The West does not want to see another attack like 9/11. But if and when it does take place, at least we should use it as an opportunity to make sure NO ONE ever does it again.