Reply #45: How carefully you avoided saying the "I" name. [View All]

[TheMadMonk]

The sane outcome would be for the "I" place to make reasonable settlement on the settlement issue and pull back to a contiguous border. And for the neighbours to agree that it is reasonable.

The insane one is an orgy of mutual anhilation rendering much of the area depicted in that map uninhabitable. Uninhabitable, but not necessarily unexploitable with suitable hazmat precautions. Particularly with a "relaxed" attitude towards worker safety.

Consider those who are calling the shots around the world. (Or believe they are, with enough backing to make little difference.) And figure out for yourself where on that spectrum any "final resolution" is likely to fall given the current climate on both sides. And consider all the various parties most likely to be left standing (after a fashion) in the aftermath. Including many current proponents who'd have no problems with the current inhabitants of the "I" place being forcefully expelled for the nth time. Mileage is Mileage.

The "Kissingers" of the world who were just barely outvoted and prevented from a global exchange by the prospect of a non-viable outcome in the sixties are seeming to find less oposition to what would be highly localised uses of nuclear devices today. Even as many as 100 nukes detonated in that locale would have a fallout effect little different to Chernobyl outside the zone. (Unless of course they were deliberately detonated to enhance fallout.) And I'm sure some idiot has considered the idea of a little "nuclear winter" being just the thing to offset Climate Change.