3 ms·

"...I'm curious why the original poster here is so confident anti-missile systems have a deterrent effect in the first place..." I find it fascinating this HN

"...I'm curious why the original poster here is so confident anti-missile systems have a deterrent effect in the first place..." I find it fascinating this HN thing we do where we skim over a comment, decide whether author agrees with us or not politically, and then pile on. I didn't say anti-missile systems have a deterrent effect. The topic was not part of my comment. At all. My only point was a simple and pragmatic one: if you have a stockpile of missiles, and you shoot one? Having somebody give you a moment-by-moment account of what happened on that missile's journey is a quite valuable thing that you will use the next time you shoot one of your missiles. My comment had zero to do with missile defense (aside from noting my interest in the subject). It was just pointing out that in general it's a really bad idea to give critiques to people shooting missiles at you. I'm not going to comment on missile defense. Not relevant to the point I was making.

CalChris 9y ago
> This article skirts dangerously close to helping one side in this war kill folks from the other side. You said this but then failed to cite anything from the article remotely supporting your claim. > in general it's a really bad idea to give critiques to people shooting missiles at you. Saudi Arabia is not us. Hell, I don't even like KSA, an autocratic regime with a value system completely antithetical to ours but yeah, with a boatload of oil.
- classicsnoot 9y ago
  I think it is important to remember that personal feelings have almost no bearing on geopolitics. Plenty of French and British citizens couldn't have cared less about the Sudetenland or Poland. Governments are obviously made up of people, just like corporations, but they seem to become an entity unto themselves. I see this often when Europeans talk about policy initiatives in the US (and vice versa by Americans when discussing mass immigration in Europe). While KSA does not (yet) enjoy a mutual defense pact with the USA on paper, neither does Israel. And yet, in certain circumstances, an attack on Haifa is an attack on the West. I don't particularly like Bibi and his buddies, but that doesn't change the strategic geopolitical situation in the slightest. So the KSA is sometimes an extension of the US, for better or for worse, which is what i think the commenter you were responding to was implying.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Bartweiss 9y ago
Bluntly, I think you're hiding behind semantics to push an idea without owning it. I don't have any idea what your politics are, and neither the conflict (Houthis vs. Saudi government) nor the news story align neatly with a political position. I considered the Trump section basically incidental, especially since even US government officials are split on the details of the story. You did not say anti-missile systems have a deterrent effect, but you said that writing an article about the failure of an anti-missile systems "..is just going to encourage more launches". That's only true if damage reports and anti-missile news influence launch decisions; I think I (and the other people responding to you) made a completely obvious inference. There's also serious equivocation here, buried under "you". If you mean "the KSA had an obvious incentive to say they shot the missile down", I agree. But the top-level comment was about "irresponsible journalism" which you suggested might literally kill people. Again, that's only true if this story undermined a deterrent effect, and "the New York Times" is certainly not the same "you" as "the Saudi Government".

CalChris 9y ago

> This article skirts dangerously close to helping one side in this war kill folks from the other side. You said this but then failed to cite anything from the article remotely supporting your claim. > in general it's a really bad idea to give critiques to people shooting missiles at you. Saudi Arabia is not us. Hell, I don't even like KSA, an autocratic regime with a value system completely antithetical to ours but yeah, with a boatload of oil.

classicsnoot 9y ago
I think it is important to remember that personal feelings have almost no bearing on geopolitics. Plenty of French and British citizens couldn't have cared less about the Sudetenland or Poland. Governments are obviously made up of people, just like corporations, but they seem to become an entity unto themselves. I see this often when Europeans talk about policy initiatives in the US (and vice versa by Americans when discussing mass immigration in Europe). While KSA does not (yet) enjoy a mutual defense pact with the USA on paper, neither does Israel. And yet, in certain circumstances, an attack on Haifa is an attack on the West. I don't particularly like Bibi and his buddies, but that doesn't change the strategic geopolitical situation in the slightest. So the KSA is sometimes an extension of the US, for better or for worse, which is what i think the commenter you were responding to was implying.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Bartweiss 9y ago

Bluntly, I think you're hiding behind semantics to push an idea without owning it. I don't have any idea what your politics are, and neither the conflict (Houthis vs. Saudi government) nor the news story align neatly with a political position. I considered the Trump section basically incidental, especially since even US government officials are split on the details of the story. You did not say anti-missile systems have a deterrent effect, but you said that writing an article about the failure of an anti-missile systems "..is just going to encourage more launches". That's only true if damage reports and anti-missile news influence launch decisions; I think I (and the other people responding to you) made a completely obvious inference. There's also serious equivocation here, buried under "you". If you mean "the KSA had an obvious incentive to say they shot the missile down", I agree. But the top-level comment was about "irresponsible journalism" which you suggested might literally kill people. Again, that's only true if this story undermined a deterrent effect, and "the New York Times" is certainly not the same "you" as "the Saudi Government".