3 ms·
It’s hard to argue that an eye-for-an-eye response is unjustified, sure. But it’s easy to see that, in a conflict, direct, equivalent retaliation is often the
by pqhwan 6y ago
It’s hard to argue that an eye-for-an-eye response is unjustified, sure.
But it’s easy to see that, in a conflict, direct, equivalent retaliation is often the least strategic response. It signals desperation (which reveals weakness), and also legitimizes your opponent’s actions. It hurts your political capital (allies lose confidence in you), which is a vital tool (e.g. coordinated international show of political/trade force). Given the current US leadership, though, it’s not surprising they’d press any button they can reach.
- read_if_gay_ 6y agoWhat would you propose?
- pqhwan 6y agoThat would be above my paygrade, but you’d start by asking what cards the US holds on the world stage: the dollar, oil, technology (for now anyways).
- read_if_gay_ 6y agoBut that’s also eye for an eye, just of a different kind, is it not?
- pqhwan 6y agoWell, I’m no pacifist. I’m saying that the latest US move will leave the world with two one-eyed superpowers still in conflict, still on equal footing, when we could’ve taken an arm or a leg.