3 ms·

They would want to avoid escalation. Escalation with cartels historically does not go well for anyone involved.

• alex43578 8mo 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 8mo 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 8mo 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 8mo ago
        This is real life. They don't to cause a problem they can't solve.
        • radlad 8mo 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 8mo 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.