3 ms·

I'm sorry that you got hurt by this. But I, as a civilian am not qualified to answer that question. Nor do I want to answer that question. This is not a perfe

I'm sorry that you got hurt by this. But I, as a civilian am not qualified to answer that question. Nor do I want to answer that question. This is not a perfect analogy, and I don't want you to think that geopolitics is a zero sum game. But, imagine two heavyweight boxers circling each other in a ring. They are bouncing on the balls of their feet. They are moving in what you would almost call a dance. Most of the "fight" is in their footwork, their positioning. When one does jab, the other blocks, or moves out of the way, or takes the hit. Sometimes they counter. Sometimes they punch. This fight goes on for a long, long time. It is not tit for tat. They both want to win. What you are saying is "That boxer needs to jab back, because the other boxer jabbed at him."

excerionsforte 7y ago
I really do not like having to make calls about fraud for months because some countries military decided to attack electronic property holding a ton of sensitive, very hard to change information. Biggest cyber theft of PII information in US history. I think it is best for the population on the other side to feel that as well which is why I prefer an electronic counter attack. We need deterrence. If China was to "jab", let them use other means of interaction that doesn't make us want to attack them physically. The more people who are affected financially by this, the more the call for a physical deterrence whether we agree with people's feelings or not.