4 ms·
I wonder what the long game of this is. If an attacker does too much damage (like disabling NYC or Chicago financial centers), they cause significant financial
by blunte 6y ago
I wonder what the long game of this is. If an attacker does too much damage (like disabling NYC or Chicago financial centers), they cause significant financial disruptions globally - some of which will negatively affect people close to the attackers.
If an actual armed conflict arose, then I could see how it might be useful. But an armed conflict between those two countries would be highly destabilizing, meaning it would create a lot of financial risk to people with big financial interests. So in other words, it's probably not worth doing.
- nickthegreek 6y agoSounds like an effective deterrent to keep your adversaries at bay in a variety of situations.
- A12-B 6y agoThis assumes the story is even true. If it doesn't seem like a rational thing to do under the pretence of it being true, then shouldn't you assume it's false?
- andrewflnr 6y agoYou still do war planning even if you don't want to go to war. We still keep our better nuclear deterrent up and running, even though literally no one wants a nuclear war.