[ought-six]

The pressure for a nuclear response to a nuke attack on us would be substantial. Moreover, there is not a nuclear power on this planet that would not nuke in response to it being nuked first. And you know it.

[HitmanLV]

No I disagree.

If a terrorist group detonates low yeield nuclear weapons in, say, NYC, DC, and Los Angeles, just as an example. The entire cities would not be destroyed, most likely - initial blast crater would be a few blocks, and fires would rage for a few blocks more radiating outward.

The cities would be terribly damagaed, and the impact would be felt citywide - gas pipes exploding, fire racing down subway tunnels, and not enough police and firemen to control the disaster.

Say 50,000+ dead in each city, several hundred thousand more burned or injured in each city.

OK, Einstein, who do you nuke in response? A major muslim city? A holy site? So kill millions of innocent people over the murder of our innocent people? Ruin one of their holy sites over what an admittedly small minority of their culture did? What does that accomplish?

The correct response is attack those directly responsible - using a nuke is like using a dozen grenades when a 9mm gun is better suited.

Nobody in the US leadership will kill 100,000s of innocent people, even after a terrorist WMD attack stateside.

"And you know it," patronizing subtext notwithstanding.