[sham]

The point of the question is to raise a fundamental issue about morality. Is there ever a line that can be crossed by the terrorist that would make it acceptable to kill innocents in order to stop the bad guys. The scenario I postulated is one that may have to be faced someday. Is it justifiable to kill 100 to save 1000, or kill 100,000 to save 10 million? Maybe it's justifiable to kill 1000 to save 100. I really don't know. Perhaps it boils down to a simple matter of self defense...better them than us.

Then there is the matter as to the identity of country X. If it was Russia or China, a significant retaliatory strike would be something else indeed than if country X was Iran or Pakistan.

Of course we could also take the view that in spite of country X's culpability in the matter, it was still the terrorist that actually instigated the attack, and only they should feel the wrath of retaliation.

I'm sorry that some of you found this question too silly to debate, but I assure you, the scenario I offered is under consideration as a future threat by various "think-tank" firms as to both emergency response and appropriate retaliation matters. I admit to exaggerating the "best guess" expected devastation by an order of magnitude to emphasize the point.