AS the terrifying scenes of burning and twisted skyscrapers were being beamed around the world, President George W Bush was already gathering a war cabinet to decide how to strike back.

It is unthinkable that the United States will do nothing. But the key questions is: who to punish and how?

The strikes on New York and Washington were carried out by an unpredictable, fanatical and unseen terrorist organisation almost certainly with its roots in the Middle East. Last night it appeared that American security forces had no inkling that such an audacious operation was on the cards.

The US has prided itself in the past on robust responses to terrorist assaults on its nationals. But now there is no obvious target for retribution. As if this weren't worrying enough, the man with his finger on the button is widely viewed as dangerously unpredictable, on this side of the Atlantic at least

Within weeks of taking office, he abandoned the Kyoto treaty, broke off negotiations with the North Koreans, signalled his willingness to scrap the anti-ballistic missile treaty and appeared less than enthusiastic towards keeping US troops in the Balkans.

His immediate options are fairly simple - once he identifies his foe - and have been demonstrated in responses to attacks on American targets in the past. Any sponsoring state can expect its capital to be bombed. American planes used English airfields on their way to bomb Colonel Gadaffi's Tripoli headquarters in 1986 after terrorists, acting under his protection, bombed a disco in Berlin packed with off-duty US personnel.

President Clinton also ordered strikes against Iraq in 1993 for an alleged plot to assassinate the first President Bush, with cruise missiles hitting Baghdad. Then, in 1998, Tony Blair endorsed Clinton's strikes against Afghanistan and the Sudan in retaliation for bombings of US embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam.

George W Bush is sure to follow that pattern. Within minutes of the first plane slamming into the World Trade Centre, he pledged: "Terrorism against this great nation will not stand."

Of course, America has a terrifying arsenal of weapons at its disposal, including nuclear weapons. How will a man who hates small detail, long hours at the office and regularly takes a work break by playing video games, react to an horrific attack that has made him seem foolish throughout the world? For all his well-publicised drawbacks, President Bush has displayed a surprising astuteness in his choice of aides.

In Donald Rumsfeld, his defence secretary, he has one of the sharpest military minds in America. His vice-president, Dick Cheney, has been here before. He was in charge at the Pentagon during the Gulf War. Although Colin Powell, then chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, was the TV face of the war, Cheney worked tirelessly behind the scenes.

His calm in the face of chaos became legendary.

Then there is President Bush Senior. His experience will be an invaluable asset this time around.

Just as Ronald Reagan restored American prestige after Jimmy Carter, so Bush promised a new era by putting his nation's interests first. The days to come will show if President George W Bush is a man of his word.