Let me post a thought experiment at a level that is easily understandable by the readers of Hotcopper (I'm gonna regret this... ) and which should resonate with their interests.
Imagine two islands on opposite sides of the world, each divided into two nations, one populated by peace-loving Arabs, the other populated by peace loving Israelis. Now, all other things being equal, let's make one of these islands a place where nitrogen fertilizer and oil -- and, hang it, detonating caps -- are readily available from the corner store for just a handful of shekels. On the other island there are none of these things. Now, can we form a hypothesis as to which island will have the higher death rate from truck bombs?
My argument is about the availability of methods of harm. The more available the instruments of destruction, the more destruction. I think there's a reasonable amount of evidence to support this hypothesis.
Gyro: your argument about Vietnam is quite a good one. There we have a vast concentration of arms and high explosive; strangely, only millions died.
