Cut me a break. A single nuclear attack on a major city can do incalculable damage. A biological attack can kill thousands if not more. The point of the discussion was that IF a terrorist organization or rogue state obtained these kind of weapons, it can be devastating if they use it. I did not say it would mean the end of our country. You are reading more into this than what I wrote.
We can postulate all kinds of devastating scenarios, but I am not going too. If you read the entire thread in which I responded, I was reacting to underestimating the POTENTIAL capability of a terrorist or rogue state if they obtained WMDs.
Sorry, but no. A single nuclear attack on a major city would do about the damage that Hurricane Katrina did to New Orleans (not, please note, the TOTAL damage that Katrina did--Katrina affected a far larger area than would a nuke)--though the number of deaths would be significantly higher. And this would also be a "real nuke"---NOT a "dirty bomb"--which would do about as much damage as a chemical attack. And your original post specified "nuclear and chemical"---NOT biological--which is the one category that CAN do a large amount of damage with a small "input".
My background--PhD (Chemistry), minor (Nucelar Science). Current occupation--designing instrumentation to detect biological attacks. So this is an area where I "am" an expert.
The kind of attacks that terrorists can pull off can be best be characterized as "painful" but not "devastating". As with all "terror" attacks, the biggest damage would be psychological.
I want the Islamofascist nutcases terminated just as badly as you do---but please, lets stick to REALISTIC assessments of possibilities.