Some things to consider (Score 0)

This makes one think, but what I've been thinking about is a little different
than some of the comments I've read here.

What happens if the U.S. is attacked again, and what if that attack uses
something a little more destructive than the last. What is our response ??

We lost thousands the last time, what if the next time it involves millions ??

MAD worked quite well when it was the U.S. vs. USSR, but who / where is
the enemy now - the situation is at best diffuse.

The working assumption seems to be that only a group with state sponsorship
could pull off such an attack. Hence the leak and the warning - I.E. don't even
think about it.

There is the risk of escalation here though, the down side is having the
named states feel they too need a deterrent and/or offensive capability
of their own.

I have to admit I am torn on this question between the need for a severe
warning to anyone who would even think of such a thing and the need
to avoid escalation. There seems to be no possible upside to playing
the card, but the risks of not doing so could be equally negative.