In March 2002, The National Review's Senior Editor, Rich Lowry, suggested in that magazine's online forum that there was ``...lots of sentiment for nuking Mecca... Mecca seems extreme, of course, but then again few people would die and it would send a signal.''

The National Review maintains its copy of Lowry's statements at: http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/2002_03_03_corner-archive.shtml#10503547 (it was available as of May 2002).  (In case the remark has been deleted, one could also likely find it by searching under the keywords, "Lowry" and "nuking Mecca" as it probably widely archived.)  The remark appears below as well.

``...few people would die...'': It is hard to know which Mecca Mr. Lowry is thinking of.  The standard photographs of Mecca commonly show thousands of pilgrims  circling around the structure (see photograph above).  Of course, we could ask whether it is unusual to have large numbers of people arouind the structure.. Given that there are approximately 1 billion Muslims worldwide and that they are encouraged to make at least one trip to Mecca, there is significant demand to make a pilgrimage.  According to The Encyclopedia Britannica, approximately 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 visitors arrive each year. Thus, as a lower bound, the average number of visitors per day would be at least 4,109.  Targetting Mecca would put a significant number of these at risk. 
 
 

1. "Population (1980 estimate), 550,000."  Mecca, Saudi Arabia Britannica Student Encyclopedia <http://www.search.eb.com/ebi/article?eu=297758>
2. "Because of the improvement of services, the number of pilgrims has increased. This annual influx brings a good income to the city, but it also results in a population of more than 2,000,000, all of whom need accommodations, food, water, electricity, transportation, and medical services." "Mecca" Encyclopædia Britannica

<http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=118182>

MORE QUESTION I: [Rich Lowry] This is a tough one, and I don’t know quite what to think. Mecca seems extreme, of course, but then again few people would die and it would send a signal. Religions have suffered such catastrophic setbacks before. As for the Saudis, my only thought is that if we're going to hold them responsible for terrorism, we had better start doing it now, not after an even more catastrophic attack. And, as a general matter, the time for seriousness—including figuring out what we would do in retaliation, so maybe it can have some slight deterrent effect--is now rather than after thousands and thousands more American casualties. Posted 4:36 PM | [Link]

QUESTION I, FOLLOW-UP: [Rich Lowry] Lots of sentiment for nuking Mecca. Moderates opt for something more along these lines: “Baghdad and Tehran would be the likeliest sites for a first strike. If we have clean enough bombs to assure a pinpoint damage area, Gaza City and Ramallah would also be on list. Damascus, Cairo, Algiers, Tripoli and Riyadh should be put on alert that any signs of support for the attacks in their cities will bring immediate annihilation.” Then there are those who think we really can't do too much differently than what were doing now (my original proposition). Posted 4:37 PM | [Link] 
 

ON RETALIATION: [Rod Dreher] It seems to me, Rich, that if an American city is nuked by terrorists, we have no choice but to respond in kind -- or we invite more of the same. But any response is fraught with crippling complications. I'd say Baghdad, Tehran and Riyadh should make the list, tout ensemble, and maybe even Damascus. As for Mecca, well, it would feel good, but we'd have every Muslim on the planet enraged unto ages of ages, and Rome would be the next target on the terrorist nuke list (ironically, Jerusalem probably has the best chance of surviving because it is sacred to all three monotheistic faiths). It occurs to me that it is insane that we're even having this conversation. It occurs to me that given the events of 9/11, and the determination and capabilities of our enemies, it is even more insane not to. God help us all. Posted 5:01 PM | [Link]