--- Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu> wrote:
>
> However, a suicide nuclear attack reverses that
> logic by placing the loss
> rates back to those for the conventional warfare.
> Thus, the suicide aspect
> looses its advantage of killing more enemies with
> fewer losses. It thus
> does not make sense. Jihadists & Co. proved to be
> rather skilled fighters
> and tacticians, so I do not think they'd fall for
> such a trap.
>
> Wojtek
How are you going to retaliate against the Jihadis if they, say, get a nuke from a Pakistani sympathizer or some other source and smuggle it into Moscow or Delhi (assuming that's technically possible -- let's say it is)? Jihadis are non-state agents. The most you can do is retaliate against a state where jihadis are known to be. That may kill a lot of non-jihadis, but by that time the culprits will probably be gone, if they were ever there. And I don't think jihadis care particularly much about "collateral damage" among ordinary Muslims caused by retaliation as long as they are killed in The Cause any more than Hitler gave a fuck about Germans.
===== Nu, zayats, pogodi!
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250