The MD-80 had two rear engines and was a fairly popular plane. A lot of smaller jets still have rear engines, too.
Fundamentally people can look it up themselves - 'ETOPS' - the redundancy requirement is a written regulation.
> no-one is arguing against redundancy
Sn0wCoder said they reason they had two engines was to go faster and not redundancy, and m00dy thinks they can't fly without two engines.
> If they needed to go faster, they could do that with a single larger engine if they wanted to (which they may have to develop.)
Plus a significantly different airframe and perhaps engine intakes to deal with the transonic issue that I also mentioned. It is an idea that bubbles up perennially [1], but so far, the economics have ensured that it doesn't go much beyond the concept stage.
This has become rather silly, but it seques into a related issue: It seems to me that fan-blade failure incidents (or at least uncontained fan-blade failure incidents) have increased in frequency in the last few years. If so, maybe this is a sign that we are already pushing a bit too hard on the limits of current technology?
[1] https://www.boeing.com/features/2019/01/spreading-our-wings-...
This is the reason that the 737 had the MCAS stuff. They increased the size of the engine that caused ground clearance problems, which required shifting them.
1 - https://www.vikingair.com/twin-otter-information/twin-otter-...
Look up 'ETOPS'.