>>74154561. Even still, I think it will either a.) not affect things as greatly as one might think, or b.) not cause problems on the world stage due to it, even if it's larger than I expect.
3/4. Islamic terror is acting as one entity and it's a large-scale collaboration; muslims are far and wide permissive of the behavior even if not all participate. The incentive of this is to have the supposed majority take over responsibility of their group instead of leaving it in the hands of literal terrorists, or face the consequences.
5. I also think it wouldn't be any concern over here. We're already on the verge of civil war, but it will be far more manageable than you might expect, likely only causing a brief, relatively peaceful balkanization period, with riots in major cities and that ilk. For example, I think my region, the only places that would contain protests or any dangerous situations would be Atlanta, Florida, major cities in Texas, and maybe some places in Virginia; otherwise, uneventful, and you could parse a similar low bar for danger for other regions of the country.
6. Pakistan is a non-threat, because they would be watched during the whole time, and if they ever considered launching a nuke then they would be systematically taken out. You know this to be true, at least.
7. Fair, but I'm also skeptical that it would be a doomsday plot, or on the scale that you predict.
In summary: I believe that the end result of such a threat would far, far outweigh any negatives it might include.
