2 ms·
Sorry but I honestly believe that the exact opposite is true. If I'm running low on resources, I'd be more careful with whatever I have left, not less.
by manyaoman 1mo ago
Sorry but I honestly believe that the exact opposite is true. If I'm running low on resources, I'd be more careful with whatever I have left, not less.
- HDThoreaun 1mo agoIsrael has plenty of bombs. They have a shortage of interceptors for short range misses that hamas and hezbollah like to lob at them. This is why they would feel the need to establish a DMZ. They can afford to kick all their neighbors out, they cant afford to intercept rockets that would fly if they dont kick their neighbors out. So I agree with you, they will be more careful with the resources that are scarce. Israel has nuclear weapons. If all their foreign backers pull out they would use them in an invasion scenario, so I dont think they need to worry to much about hot war with a legitimate government.
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- frollogaston 1mo agoI'm not convinced that the nukes would deter invaders. Yom Kippur War was after they already had nukes. But I also don't think it'd come to that. They'd negotiate something.
- frollogaston 1mo agoIn every asymmetric war, the side with fewer resources has targeted civilians more. Or if both sides have few resources, both do it. It's expensive to carefully only attack military targets. For one, involves sending in soldiers to places they could've bombed instead.