Replies

"strategically significant"

The bombing on an embassy or a military barracks would not be "strategically significant." Your "nuke" reference is more in the line of what I would call significant. These things come to mind:

1. Some kind of EMP attack or other attack which disables a significant part of the power grid.
2. A viral attack on the Internet.
3. An attack - dirty nuke, chemical, whatever - on a major capital or major city that causes significant casualties and/or mid- to long-term disruption of everyday activities.
4. Multiple conventional bomb or suicide-bomb attacks on major cities that lead to dozens or hundreds of casualties.
5. Multiple suicide bomb attacks on airliners causing hundreds of deaths.
6. An attack on a major monument or tourist attraction - Eifel Tower, Disneyland, etc.
7. The assassination of one or more Western leaders, or a devastating attack on the central governmental offices of a Western power, e.g., US Capitol Building.
8. The takeover of a mid-Eastern government such as Saudi Arabia.

Those are the kinds of things I would consider "big" or "strategically significant."