[ash]

*waves peace flag and launches dove bird*
Okay, I don't have a clue about his principles, but I'll just look at the options Big K has given.

*ahem*
Obviously a country has the sovereign right to defend itself. Personally, its best to keep the collateral damage to the minimum. Even so, using effective yet non destructive technologies is the key, since human life is indeed valuable. Diplomacy must be tried throughout to resolve a conflict.

One caveat of option III: By retaliating on their home soil, the aggressor has no choice but to dedicate all their resources and military assets for a drawn out war, despite being their fault. Even if only military bases were the target, it'll definitely spill over to the rest of society (look at the Iraq Invasion for proof). Bad news for both countries, winner or loser. When was the last time there was a full scale conflict between nations, where both countries were attacked? Thats right: WWII, the blackest mark in human history. You can't forget the trench wars and the atomic bombs, can you?

Weapons are such double edged swords indeed.