Display:
I understand what you mean better. Yes, civil war is the greatest (and pretty much the only) danger to oil production, but it is rare that it has lasted long enough to really disrupt oil production (witness Algeria, Iran for examples with different outcomes)

My question is - can you have the combination of (i) some fundamentalist having access to the nuclear bomb and (ii) not being in power at the same time.

Because using the nuclear bomb, even within its own country, is a guaranteed trigger for retaliation, whether nuclear or more targetted, against that leader/ship controlling the nukes.

If they are rational enough to have the organisation to actually control a nuke, they will be rational enough to try to keep in power. The "fundamentalist"leaders don't go kill themselves, they send others to do it for their political goals. fundamentalism is really a way to control society and to keep power. The fundamentalist and actual believers don't get close to power, because then they are not pious anymore.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 06:47:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They don't have to intend to use it to put it in place. Then maybe it doesn't take that much to get it used. I realise it's a pretty extreme case.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 07:08:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
An extremist in charge of Saudi Arabia would have a lot of disposable cash.  How many loose Soviet nukes are there floating around the former Soviet satellite states?  I had thought there were a lot, and the staff minding them are increasingly hungry, as they are paid less and less regularly.
by guleblanc on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 03:58:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recommended Diaries
Occasional Series