3 ms·

Thanks for thinking it through a bit more in the spirit of the question. That's a bit more what I was getting at. There are potentially instances where it start

by prawn 4y ago

Thanks for thinking it through a bit more in the spirit of the question. That's a bit more what I was getting at. There are potentially instances where it starts to become a grey area (responsibility with both parties), and the separate question is who would the public deem responsible.

analog31 4y ago
I don't think it's a grey area at all. The first party is responsible for creating the situation, the second for how they deal with it. This happens all the time in cases where the police have to deal with someone who's threatening people.
- prawn 4y ago
  That's the grey area I'm talking about though. If China sends a missile into the US, it's shot down, but there is collateral damage, Americans will overwhelmingly consider China responsible. If a Chinese airline flies a regular route and is abruptly shot down, and the plane crashes into a populated area, Americans would hopefully consider their own government responsible. The grey area I'm musing about is in the middle, and how some portion of the public might be sympathetic, how this might be destabilising, and what avenues the agitator might explore.
  - analog31 4y ago
    Indeed, an objective of psychological warfare (aka terrorism) is to turn a population against its own government.