The UK allows supporters of terrorism to climb atop Big Ben during anti-war demonstrations. France allows supporters of terrorism to run their country. Is this a trick question?

I hate to disagree with AK(mental beating is immenent, cringe) but I have to. THe UK isn't that bad. They at least threw in with us. We've had idiots doing similar crap all over the Pac. Nor West(some fools climbed a monster crane and got arrested, story out of Seattle P-I). That's what makes them free. Luckily, we have guys like AK and SW who hoot and holler at the morons. As to nuc response. NO WAY. NObody is that dumb. unless the Brits or Frogs go the classical decimation route(literally killing one out of ten) to make the point that the children should stop being naughty or daddy spank I'd say not. It's too much a rallying point and propaganda supplier.

>>I hate to disagree with AK(mental beating is immenent, cringe) but I have to.<< Heh. It's okay to disagree with me. My fiance's chili does all the time. ;-) I was just making an irreverent reference to the protesters who made their way atop Big Ben. Imagine if some war protesters climbed atop the Statue of Liberty or Mt. Rushmore to hang up a banner. But more to the point, imagine if war protesters with bombs in their backpacks climbed atop Big Ben.

We didn't use nukes on 9-11. Either would they.

using tactical nukes after a bombing is out of the question for UK or France, just like the US didn't use nuke after 9-11. anyways in some future that may change with the r&d made by the Us and by france on "micro nuke" capable of more precise blast. These nuke are by nature design for special purpose just like this one. As for the "france allows supporters of terrorism to run their country" I'm getting sick to read that, that's just plain bashing with no ground, btw if france was supporting terrorism, how can you explain the threat made from AQ that they will strike france too?

""micro nuke" capable of more precise blast" Already exists in the form of the neutron bomb. From the site:http://www.manuelsweb.com/neutronbomb.htm "The neutron bomb delivers blast and heat effects that are confined to an area of only a few hundred yards in radius. But within a somewhat larger area it throws off a massive wave of neutron and gamma radiation"

Granted the Trade Towers didn't occupy the same place in our hearts as say: Lady Liberty, Yankee Stadium, Rushmore, the various stuff at the Capitol, but, I still don't see that leading to nuclear response. A massive invasion, maybe, but not nuclear. Too many of us fear letting the genie out of the bottle to much.

Pro-islamofascists climbing a crane in Seattle? What a terrible shame it didn't happen in New York. The story "Protesters Climb Crane" would have made the morning papers. The PM editions would have headlined "Crane Operator Blames Tragic Protester Deaths on Freak Winds." .

I really don't see the need to. Retaliation can be exacted with conventional means.

Can we be clear I might be mistaken but is this a how would you like question? Do you think the Israelis and Americas response to terrorism has been more measured than u.k or Frances response would be in the same circumstances? If im wrong then the question should be under what conceivable circumstances do you think that nukes would be used against terrorists?