[HardStarboard]

This whole article presupposes a rationality on the part of Islamofascists that does not exist.

[NativeNewYorker]

This whole article presupposes a rationality on the part of Islamofascists that does not exist.

Bears repeating.

[Capt. Tom]

This whole article presupposes a rationality on the part of Islamofascists that does not exist.

Agreed.
For a person who believes in a supernatural being, the prospect of an eternal reward will trump worldly considerations.
Fundamental Muslims are willing to put their lives on the line for "Allah."

[Jonah Johansen]

After a nuclear attack there will not necessarily be any rationality on either side.

The anti-nuke unilateral disarmament movement of the early 80s were mostly liars, ‘chicken littles’ and Communist sympathizers/enablers but they did get one thing right. Once nuclear weapons are used all bets are off and expecting the parties involved to act rationally is a dangerous presupposition.

Any plan/scenario for using nuclear weapons which calls for your opponent to act in a predictable manner according to what would rationally be, in their best interest, is fatally flawed.

The reason is that after such an attack the voices of moderation will be absent, they will not be any moderates or others advising caution at the decision table.

_______________________________

For example imagine the Israeli cabinet meeting in the hours following the destruction of Tele Aviv by 3 Iranian nuclear weapons and the death of 100,000 Israelis.
A third of the cabinet may not be at the meeting because they are dead everyone else at the meeting has just lost a child, spouse, parent or all three.
I can easily imagine a scene in which a left leaning cabinet member starts to argue for restraint and common sense and another cabinet member pulls out a revolver and shoots him dead, He then turns to the remaining cabinet members and asks “Any one else think we should show restraint?”

I can also imagine someone suggesting that in addition to retaliating against Tehran, Israel should drop nuclear bombs on Damascus and Cairo, and someone at the table interrupting them and saying Why not Athens, Rome and Paris?
The thought being, that as long as only middle eastern cities are destroyed Europe will not really see it as a question of ‘life or death’ and will not act. The destruction of their capital cities will make it “their” conflict, they will feel Israels pain

Someone might argue Europe will not retaliate because they don't want to lose any more cities and Israel has clearly shown they will to act in an apparently irrational manner.

I am not saying this is a likely consequence I am just saying that once the line has been crossed with weapons of mass destruction do not expect the outcome to be predictable or manageable.

[RachelFaith]

This whole article presupposes a rationality on the part of Islamofascists that does not exist.

BINGO !!

If you think Allah can wave his magic wand and make it all better why NOT nuke them? Magic can fix anything.

[ZX12R]

This whole article presupposes a rationality on the part of Islamofascists that does not exist.

I didn't read it that way. It presupposes the rationality of other middle eastern countries, who may not be so inclined toward nuclear exchanges.