Were Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden justified? Some thoughts on Representative Tancredo's recent comments

Tom Tancredo, a member of the House from Colorado, was asked about a Muslim attack against U.S. cities using nuclear weapons. He stated that a nuclear response against Islam's holy sites might be appropriate.

Many otherwise sensible commentators disagreed. Two of my responses to one host's thoughts are posted below, not so much in defense of the Representative's statements, but to expose the wrong-headedness that apparently informs that host's positions.

This was sent this morning to Representative Tancredo:

Our "War on Terror" is actually a War of Self-Defense Against Jihad.

I believe that the enemy our nation faces in this life-and-death struggle is actually Qur'anic Islam. Suras 9:5, 9:29, and 8:39 clearly command the fighting against, subduing, and killing of non-Muslims.

These (and many other) commands of Allah, taken together with the life of Mohammed and 1400 years of global Jihad, demonstrate that those whom the politically-correct call "radicals" and "extremists" are actually practicing true Islam. It is the "moderate" Muslim whose practice is at variance with the "great world religion" and its scripture, founder, and history (and no doubt some of these "moderates" are actually practicing taqiyya).

A retraction of, or apology for, your hypothetical statement as to what the United States might do in response to a nuclear attack would show weakness to our enemy.

Those normally-sensible Americans calling for you to recant are taking a position consistent with Jihadist-front groups like CAIR, who are working vigorously to deceive the American people about the true nature and purpose of Islam. Such calls compromise what otherwise might be an effective deterrent.

Thousands of innocent Japanese were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many innocent Germans were targeted in Dresden. Would those criticizing your statement today have made the same arguments sixty years ago? If force against civilians can be justified in those cases (especially in the case of using nuclear weapons against Japan), why is it not justified today (against what is arguably a much more malevolent and dishonorable enemy)?

Since it appears overwhelming, unspeakably-terrible force is the only thing Jihadists respect, such a response may be a necessary evil in defense of our innocents.