4 ms·

Shooting down civilian American aircraft like that would seem to just be for an even more strong response… Seems unlikely.

• guerrilla 9mo ago
  They would want to avoid escalation. Escalation with cartels historically does not go well for anyone involved.
  • alex43578 9mo ago
    Escalation by attacking US civilians or the homeland has also gone poorly. It’s been the casus belli many times, notably ending in two Japanese cities getting nuked…
    • guerrilla 9mo ago
      Dropping nuclear bombs on Japan was in an entirely different context which has no relevance here. We're not in the middle of a global war (nor is anyone even at war with Mexico), nor in a nuclear arms race asserting nuclear capabilities for the first time in history. You're forgetting all the times the US failed too, and those cases weren't even on its own border. Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam... the list is very long. Creating an existential threat on your own border is a bad move for anyone. Remember how bad Columbia got? I guess not. The current situation has the potential to be much more dangerous.
      • radlad 9mo ago
        > You're forgetting all the times the US failed too, and those cases weren't even on its own border. Doesn't the US have more resources at home, not less? Wouldn't a strike on US soil be a larger escalation and dictate a swift and larger response?
        • guerrilla 9mo ago
          This is real life. They don't to cause a problem they can't solve.
          • radlad 9mo ago
            You are now leaning your premise as an argument. I disagree that it would cause a problem. I believe it's unrealistic that "the cartel" would strike back against the USG, particularly on US soil.
    • willturman 9mo ago
      The homeland? Yikes. The last time there was an attack within the United States’ borders it notably ended with a self-owning combination of perhaps the largest bureaucratic waste of time and money in human history (DHS/TSA) and the systematic erosion of enumerated rights.
• m4rtink 9mo ago
  If only this was a certainty - Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down with 298 people killed 12 years ago but still no one was directly punished for it...
  • bluedino 9mo ago
    Malaysia isn't going to attack Russia.
    • ethbr1 9mo ago
      I highly doubt the Russians/separatists running the Buk knew the identity of the flight before shooting it down.
      • myrmidon 9mo ago
        Most certainly not, but I don't see how that is relevant. The problem (from a victim/Dutch perspective) is that there is complete denial from the Russian side (despite heaps of evidence around the people involved, origin and transport of the launcher from Russian territory). Even if Russian judges and prosecutors are completely corrupt and biased, an actual investigation/trial is the least that would be expected here, but all we got are the bald faced lies that Russia is particularly fond of.
        • m4rtink 9mo ago
          At least some vengeance has been already done in blood, although indirectly, given how oversized has been dutch support for Ukraine compared to other similarly sized countries.
        • ethbr1 9mo ago
          Because the thread was about how shooting down a civilian airliner has consequences, and the person I replied to insinuated it didn't because Malaysia was ill-equipped to push the issue militarily. Which isn't relevant if the people who shot it down had no idea if it was / wasn't Malaysian. Similar to how cartels likely wouldn't have the sophistication to nationally ID any aerial targets they choose to shoot.