Iran and Israel at War

[Louis VI the Fat]

Can you name one suicidal state in the entire history of mankind?

Plenty. They are not around anymore, which is probably owing to their suicidal nature.

While I agree with your assesment that states should not be described in antropomorphic terms, I do think that you place too much confidence in the rational behaviour of states. Especially of states run by dictators - where the line between 'person', acting with all the irrationalities and whims of the human character, and 'impersonal state' can be very thin indeed.

Many autocratic regimes have proven themselves quite willing to destroy their nation in a desperate bid to cling on to power. Or to gamble everything for far less rational and predictable reasons.

But like for so many governments, having an untouchable Enemy is really useful to keep their peoples from asking awkward questions about rights and democracy.

Right. Remove the governments, and the nations of the Middle East will revert to their natural state of human rights and democracy, which their populace has been clamouring for all along. This line of reasoning proved a costly mistake in previous years.


FactionHeir, thanks for your interesting article.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Right. Remove the governments, and the nations of the Middle East will revert to their natural state of human rights and democracy, which their populace has been clamouring for all along. This line of reasoning proved a costly mistake in previous years.

How delicious. No-one has implied my neo-con tendencies for some time now.

I believe that the natural state of Mankind is to be free. So yes, remove these governments and the nations of the Middle East will tend towards their natural state.

Your straw man is to suggest that I would encourage outsiders to effect this change, rather than to allow those people to discover liberty themselves.

[Tribesman]

The IAF is 20 years more advanced as well.

That is irrelevant since the two have almost nothing similar .
Remind me again Panzer , what were the probabilities given in the assesment you linked ?You know the one that gve odds on how unlikely it would be for them to be able to deliver the correct bombs in sequence at the right target with the split second timing needed for them to work together

[PanzerJaeger]

That is irrelevant since the two have almost nothing similar .
Remind me again Panzer , what were the probabilities given in the assesment you linked ?You know the one that gve odds on how unlikely it would be for them to be able to deliver the correct bombs in sequence at the right target with the split second timing needed for them to work together

Remind me again what the outcome of said assessment was? (Ignoring the interesting surface to surface goodies Israel recently aquired and the near certainty that they have assets in country that greatly reduce aiming difficulties.)

[Tribesman]

Panzer , a bookmaker would wet himself laughing if anyone ever considered placing a bet at those odds.

Remind me again what the outcome of said assessment was?

The assesment was that if they are willing to risk their entire usable strike capacity and get lots and lots of co-operation from a wide range of unfriendly nations they may just about be able to try it with a very very high risk of total failure .

[Adrian II]

Many autocratic regimes have proven themselves quite willing to destroy their nation in a desperate bid to cling on to power. Or to gamble everything for far less rational and predictable reasons.

Democracies can be just as irrational as autocracies. All are given to mistakes. However, no state in history ever wanted 'to end it all'.

The situation that came closest to having a madman in control of a nuclear arsenal would be the democratically elected Richard Nixon in his final years in office. He was paranoid, permapissed and extremely angry.

Come on, Louis; either you agree with me, or you must be barking mad.