Just because I didn't expect a good answer doesn't mean I would not have entertained one. You are right that I don't believe there is a good answer, but I am prepared to be wrong. I would not reject an answer just because it can't be proved. I might say that I don't believe the suggested scenario would play out, but I would offer reasons beyond a lack of evidence.

More important, even if I did reject an answer as unrealistic, it would be there for readers to see and assess. Maybe YOU would accept it and argue for it. Convincing ME isn't really the point of the exchange. I did not want to declare that conciliation would be seen as appeasement - that's what a rhetorical question would do. I wanted to SHOW that anyone suggesting conciliation has not thought through the scenario. The question was asked in good faith, but not with high hopes.