Yes, I rejected it, because the application to the US is much more problematic. There are enough sufficiently stupid US politicians who think they could win a nuclear war against Russia. See all these guys here in the forum who like to associate any Russian weapons with the attribute "rusty". You think US politicians are somehow better informed, in the age of Trump? Lol. Note also that a nuclear war will be preceded by a conventional war, and it was a conventional war with Russia which was in Clinton's election program (shooting a Russian aeroplane because of some no-fly zone in Syria would start only a conventional war). Would Israel start a conventional war with Russia? No, because this would be clear enough a suicide too. Would the US start such a war? A very different question. Another difference: We are not talking about some Israeli politician who had, as part of his political program, actions of war against Russia, the actual leader of Israel has, instead, recently participated together with Russia in a political demonstration. So, my conclusions are different, because the situation is very different. You prefer to simplify things, I don't. So, no wonder why you fail all the time interpreting what I think - the result is something oversimplified, and this is never true. Complete nonsense. What I favour is certainly not some "world government's law", there is, fortunately, no such law because there is no world government, what I favour is libertarian law, and this is something between moral law and common law. It is also in agreement with international law, which is contract law. I do not favour any world government at all, because I think that it leads, in very short time, into a totalitarian world. And I favour the international law, as contract law (contract law has no conflict with the libertarian law) in comparison with a lawless situation which is what happens once the strongest nation accepts no legal restrictions at all, which is the actual state of the world.