In separate papers, Williams and Koukal argue that 
Hobbes’s political philosophy is seriously deficient 
because it is incapable of addressing the problem of 
suicide terrorism. They maintain that because Hobbes 
believes fear of death is paramount he holds that rule 
can be maintained by means of physical force alone, 
and therefore Hobbes cannot account for and cannot 
counter attackers who are willing to die. I argue that 
the critics are mistaken. Hobbes is aware sovereigns 
may face opponents who are willing to die, and in 
response he maintains that physical force must not be 
a sovereign’s sole means of ruling. The picture of 
Hobbesian sovereignty which emerges from rebutting the 
critics is more nuanced and less unattractive than is 
widely appreciated.