[ought-six]

"Your advocacy and insistence of going nuclear is more like a petulant child's behavior. No way we would go nuclaear after being on the receiving end of a small nuclear attack via a terror network. It just won't happen - your fantasy of holy cities as glass is, thankfully, a fantasy."

Then Britain, Israel, Pakistan, India, France, China, and Russia are like "petulant children", because I can guarantee they'd nuke in retaliation of being nuked first (I didn't mention North Korea because it IS a petulant child, no two ways about it). If Islamists nuked, say, Moscow, are you telling me that Putin would just go after the individuals responsible? Be serious. Russia would understand perfectly that such an attack was done for and on behalf of radical Islam, which enjoys wide support throughout the Islamic word, and it (Russia) would unleash the hounds of hell against the Islamic world (which Russia knows despises Russia, as well as it despises America; and Russia already is having to deal with its own home-grown Islamic extremists, so it would see such an attack as an even more immediate threat).

[HitmanLV]

Think anything you want. None of the nations you mentioned would go nuclear in response to a limited nuclear attack from terrorists. Who would they attack? You can't bomb a city of innocent people for what a terror group that numbers in the 1,000s does.

I question your perception - I can't see how you would think that any of those civilized nations would bahave that way. It's a violent, posturing fantasy.