Again, your position is based on a disdain for emotion and a preference for "reason.' This is not a position I share, we are not Vulcans. I see no shame in recognising the emotional nature of our fellow actors.

I would point out the humour in an emotional reaction to my choice of words derailing the conversation but the realisation that there are people who believe their "great military leaders" are somehow "above" emotions and that this is a good thing is genuinely terrifying

Nobody is saying emotions don't exist. But I, like many others, believe that our ability to choose our reactions based on reason rather than emotion is what separates us from animals. We don't always succeed, but this is why your unevidenced claim implying that emotion is the primary driver of decision making has ruffled feathers.

People including myself have emotional reactions, but I choose to respond with a reasoned explanation, and I certainly wouldn't engage in violence with you over it, even if a portion of my lizard brain demanded that I should.

> unevidenced claim implying that emotion is the primary driver of decision making

You've added the words "primary driver" here yourself, I never made such a claim. But I hope you can see that not only that leap but also your desire to overcome your "animalistic" emotions are both rooted in emotion.

I won't waste my time looking for evidence for a claim I didn't make and I don't think it's up for debate that the majority of people in the armed forces are "armed and emotional." But in terms of the original claim that checks and balances only serve up to the point of human failure I could point to any number of examples and would repeat the fact that others have raised some in this thread.