> Even suicide bombers don't have death as their primary aim - if they achieve the same result without dying, they would."
That depends on how you define "the same result". The assumed (in some cultures) moral superiority of the suicide bomber regardless of the legitimacy of the target can have considerable PR value. In a way that somewhat resembles a ponzi scheme, those at the very top may reap higher rewards, and so choose to elevate the tactic into a strategy.
Consider "the result" to include religious goals based on a belief in the afterlife. If they could obtain piety some other way they could - as opposed to wanting to end life as it is no longer enjoyable.
And you now know why some groups (religions, sects, etc.) use (or have used) martyrdom (including the suicide bomb variety) as a tactic, and others have not:
More than one goal exists for each group, many of these goals are not mutually compatible, and different groups arrive at different mixes of tactics in pursuit of their goals and to resolve (or ignore) the various contradictions and incompatibilities in different ways, and these mixes change over time in reaction to a changing environment, including the S&T employed by other groups.
IOW, don't expect the strategies or tactics that groups use to settle on any sort of Nash equilibrium.
That depends on how you define "the same result". The assumed (in some cultures) moral superiority of the suicide bomber regardless of the legitimacy of the target can have considerable PR value. In a way that somewhat resembles a ponzi scheme, those at the very top may reap higher rewards, and so choose to elevate the tactic into a strategy.