5 ms·

If retaliation for an attack makes the lives of 1 billion Chinese worse, then that's on them for attacking, not on us for responding. A space force general is

If retaliation for an attack makes the lives of 1 billion Chinese worse, then that's on them for attacking, not on us for responding. A space force general is not "one guy saying"

boomboomsubban 5y ago
I don't think temporarily stopping us from spying on them justifies potentially killing people, particularly as I'd bet we do the same thing. And no matter how important a guy is they still need to provide evidence for their claims.
- post_from_work 5y ago
  >>>I don't think temporarily stopping us from spying on them justifies potentially killing people Interestingly enough, Trump took the same position when the Iranians shot down an expensive spy drone, and Trump called off the punitive strike against Iran that would have killed ~150 people. Yet people maintained that he was an unstable warmonger. shrug https://www.npr.org/2019/06/21/734683701/trump-reportedly-orders-strike-on-iran-then-calls-off-attack-plan https://www.npr.org/2019/06/21/734683701/trump-reportedly-or...
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    Because he also made decisions like removing the Presidential approval for CIA drone strikes, dropped the "Mother of All Bombs," sold masses of weapons to the Saudis while helping them kill Yemenis, and many more acts. That he claimed to have stopped one strike doesn't change his record, though his overall record was similar to other recent presidents.
    - post_from_work 5y ago
      >>>his overall record was similar to other recent presidents That's kinda my point, he wasn't significantly different from the other idiots we've had in office but CNN et al. certainly didn't spend 8 years calling Obama an unhinged tyrant, despite him also being more of the same with regards to bombing brown countries.
wallacoloo 5y ago
> then that's on them for attacking, not on us for responding. and if the other party applies this same reasoning to your response? if your epistemics are at all self-consistent, then after the escalation you’re responsible for the negative impact on about half of all the lives impacted. the easy out you present is just self delusion.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
willcipriano 5y ago
>A space force general is not "one guy saying" Yeah it was probably the CIA or another similarly reputable agency[0] that actually made the report. [0]https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/cia-employees-sex-crimes-children-secret-files-foia https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/cia-employ...
alksjdalkj 5y ago
It's distressing how casually people can suggest harming a billion people - for actions that the vast majority had nothing to do with.
pabs3 5y ago
The people who did the attack aren't going to be the ones punished, which doesn't seem fair to me.
ridgeguy 5y ago
Seems like a Pyrrhic dynamic. I can't see how to make the lives of 1 billion Chinese worse without having similar effects on the rest of the first world.
- Eelongate 5y ago
  The objective of the game is making the other guy feel certain he can't win. The only winning condition is when both sides believe they can't win.

If retaliation for an attack makes the lives of 1 billion Chinese worse, then that's on them for attacking, not on us for responding. A space force general is not "one guy saying"

boomboomsubban 5y ago

I don't think temporarily stopping us from spying on them justifies potentially killing people, particularly as I'd bet we do the same thing. And no matter how important a guy is they still need to provide evidence for their claims.

post_from_work 5y ago
>>>I don't think temporarily stopping us from spying on them justifies potentially killing people Interestingly enough, Trump took the same position when the Iranians shot down an expensive spy drone, and Trump called off the punitive strike against Iran that would have killed ~150 people. Yet people maintained that he was an unstable warmonger. shrug https://www.npr.org/2019/06/21/734683701/trump-reportedly-orders-strike-on-iran-then-calls-off-attack-plan https://www.npr.org/2019/06/21/734683701/trump-reportedly-or...
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  Because he also made decisions like removing the Presidential approval for CIA drone strikes, dropped the "Mother of All Bombs," sold masses of weapons to the Saudis while helping them kill Yemenis, and many more acts. That he claimed to have stopped one strike doesn't change his record, though his overall record was similar to other recent presidents.
  - post_from_work 5y ago
    >>>his overall record was similar to other recent presidents That's kinda my point, he wasn't significantly different from the other idiots we've had in office but CNN et al. certainly didn't spend 8 years calling Obama an unhinged tyrant, despite him also being more of the same with regards to bombing brown countries.

wallacoloo 5y ago

> then that's on them for attacking, not on us for responding. and if the other party applies this same reasoning to your response? if your epistemics are at all self-consistent, then after the escalation you’re responsible for the negative impact on about half of all the lives impacted. the easy out you present is just self delusion.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

willcipriano 5y ago

>A space force general is not "one guy saying" Yeah it was probably the CIA or another similarly reputable agency[0] that actually made the report. [0]https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/cia-employees-sex-crimes-children-secret-files-foia https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/cia-employ...

alksjdalkj 5y ago

It's distressing how casually people can suggest harming a billion people - for actions that the vast majority had nothing to do with.

pabs3 5y ago

The people who did the attack aren't going to be the ones punished, which doesn't seem fair to me.

ridgeguy 5y ago

Seems like a Pyrrhic dynamic. I can't see how to make the lives of 1 billion Chinese worse without having similar effects on the rest of the first world.

Eelongate 5y ago
The objective of the game is making the other guy feel certain he can't win. The only winning condition is when both sides believe they can't win.