10 ms·

The best defence is a good offence.

by ihsw 13y ago

mousefad 13y ago
A catchy sound byte, but in almost all practical situations, the best defence is avoiding conflict. In fights: flee. In international affairs: diplomacy.
- javert 13y ago
  That is disasterous. That logic is why Chaimberlain allowed Hitler to get more and more and more power. ("Surely they'll agree to peace if we just let them have Poland.") It is also why my generation (I'm 27) will eventually have to fight a nuclear war that pits Iran against Israel and possibly the US. That war will potentially kill millions. And whose fault will it be? Obama's and Bush's. They will (if history is just and we don't change course) go down in history as potentially making mistakes that killed millions, just as Stalin and Hitler did. Or we could insist now (or, ideally, a few years ago) that Iran not develop nuclear weapons capability, if necessary fighting a minor tactical war to stop them. (There is NO reason to have Vietnam IV, where Afghanistan and Iraq are Vietnam II and III. Except of course socialism for defense contractors and altruism as we throw away trillions "re-building" the latter two countries.)
  - jjoonathan 13y ago
    > That is disasterous. You should have hedged with "can be" instead of "is." Fighting preemtive wars can be disastrous too. > my generation (I'm 27) will eventually have to fight a nuclear war that pits Iran against Israel and possibly the US Do you seriously believe that? Sure, Iran will get to throw their weight around a bit more with nuclear power, but they're not that desperate or stupid. > Obama and Bush ... will go down in history ... just as Stalin and Hitler did No. > a minor tactical war [would] stop [Iran from developing nuclear weapons] Maybe. You complain about "throwing away trillions" fighting silly wars and re-building countries. You do realize that the exact same sell (fight a minor war, stop the terrorists!) was used for the last two multi-trillion-dollar debacles, right? Either we give them a bloody nose and they just try again (keeping their cards closer to their chest this time) or we spend trillions trying to install another puppet government.
  - atmosx 13y ago
    USA made a war claiming that Iraq had Nuclear weapons. Apparently it didn't. The only one who gained anything from Iraq war, were 7 USA-based oil companies. Iran has lost the war vs Iraq a some years ago. As a European, I don't see Iran as a threat. But you probably do...
    - aioprisan 13y ago
      That's wrong. We do know that they had been trying to develop nuclear weapons for years. The first reactor was bought from France in the 70s and the Israelis bombed Iraq a few times to stop them from developing nuclear weapons. The same will happen with Iran if they do not stop enriching uranium above energy-related levels. Back to Iraq, there was evidence that was presented to Congress, and if you ask most of the people who voted to authorize the war based on the evidence, such as Hillary or John Kerry, they say they have no regrets in voting that way (i.e. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/ http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/). Now, in hindsight, whether all that evidence was correct is an entirely different debate.
      - atmosx 13y ago
        If you explain to me why Iran can not have nuclear weapons while USA and Israel (and France and the UK and Russia and Korea and China) can I'll give it a second thought. My personal view is that the USA was interested in the oil sitting there. End of story. Same thing with Ghadafi. The rest is politics to justify a war that doesn't make any sense. Indeed the Iraq war was Blair's political destruction in the UK. Why do you think no one wants to attack Syria? Out of lack of evidence ? At that level you don't need evidence, you create them...
        smsm42 13y ago
        Your personal view is wrong, and, even worse, not very smart. It does not make any sense to spend this much money on getting Iranian oil - it could be just bought much cheaper (if all sanctions and impediments were removed), and US has plenty of oil that is not being developed anyway. >>> Why do you think no one wants to attack Syria? Because attack presumes you need to achieve something. There's nothing in Syria that can be achieved right now that would be a desirable target. Assad is evil, islamic fundamentalists that battle him are evil too, US has no power and no political will to reform Syria and make anything good out of that mess. Neither does anybody else. That's why Assad is not being removed - because after removing him nobody knows how to clean up the mess.
  - crazytony 13y ago
    Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Agreement which allowed Germany to annex parts of Czechoslovakia at the end of September 1938. World War 2 started when Germany decided to invade Poland in late 1939. Germany was never given Poland. You get even the most basic history wrong and then proceed to say that Bush and Obama are historically equivalent to Stalin and Hitler? Never let facts get in the way of a good dogma.
    - paulnechifor 13y ago
      > World War 2 started when Germany decided to invade Poland in late 1939. Germany and the Soviet Union. Sure, the Soviets attacked after the Germans, but they split Poland between them before the invasion.
      - brdrak 13y ago
        Not just Poland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact
  - gaius 13y ago
    The reality is that Britain wasn't ready. Chamberlain bought us the time needed to power up to fight the Battle of Britain in 1940. Which we won. 2 years later, having profited from selling weapons to both sides, America sees which way the wind is blowing and decides to join the winning team. PS You forgot Clinton bombing pharmaceutical plants in Sudan, then taking his eye off the ball to play his sax, schmooze with Hollywood and chase skirts, while the wheels of 9/11 were set inexorably in motion.
    - bananacurve 13y ago
      Your contortions, while amusing, rewrite history in order to maintain your unhealthy obsession with America's alleged wickedness. Sure, Europe won the war and the US tagged along. Right. Whatever you need to believe to try to hold your precious worldview together, reality be damned.
      - caf 13y ago
        The reality is probably that neither the US nor Russia could have defeated Germany alone. The GP is wrong that the US joined the "winning side" though - they joined the losing side, because a Europe united under one hostile power would be a fundamental security threat to the US.
        smsm42 13y ago
        They could have. If they have started early. Longer they waited, harder it got to achieve.
    - dobbsbob 13y ago
      Battle of Britain was won because the Canadian air force shot down huge numbers of Messerschmitts, and because a German pilot screwed up and bombed London against orders not to do so, instead of focusing on air strips and bases. Result was Allies bombed German cities in retaliation and Hitler ordered London destroyed which took the focus off disabling the Royal AF, and allowed Britain to regain air superiority and stop the attack. Anyways this has nothing to do with RSA taking a bribe to sell feeble crypto products
  - caf 13y ago
    It is also why my generation (I'm 27) will eventually have to fight a nuclear war that pits Iran against Israel and possibly the US. No, we won't. There is simply no geopolitical logic to Iran and Israel going to war.
    - javert 13y ago
      Umm, Iran is run by a council of religious fanatics. There is no logic to Iran.
      - abalashov 13y ago
        That may be (although it amounts to a gross oversimplification), but it's still a functional government and a self-interested bureaucracy. Daily life goes on in Iran much as anywhere else. Council of religious fanatics notwithstanding, and its occasional grandiloquent pronouncements also notwithstanding, Iran's government is mostly full of administrators and workers that implement things like water treatment, motor vehicle registration, low-income housing, zoning, meat inspection, and energy. There is most definitely logic to Iran, much as to any other actually-existing government. There's even logic to its foreign relations, underneath the ideological veneer. Imagine if someone thought US policy actually worked literally as presidential speeches suggest; you'd think they're an ignorant tool. "Everyone knows that speeches are just speeches," you'd say, with no connection to the actual practice of governance. It may surprise you to learn that it's like that in any state, including Iran. Disclaimer: US citizen living in Armenia, NW of Iran. None of the very numerous Iranians here leave one with the impression that they are from a place with "no logic". Turn off Fox News.
        javert 13y ago
        > Imagine if someone thought US policy actually worked literally as presidential speeches suggest; you'd think they're an ignorant tool. "Everyone knows that speeches are just speeches," you'd say, with no connection to the actual practice of governance. I don't agree with this at all. For instance, Obama has done what he promised: More big government programs and spending, nationalized healthcare. People knew what they were getting with Obama when he ran for President. There are a lot of problems with America but I can't stand it when people attack it for reasons that it actually doesn't deserve. > None of the very numerous Iranians here leave one with the impression that they are from a place with "no logic". I was referring to the government, which was pretty explicit. Fundamentally, there is a tradeoff between religiosity and logic in any religious government. The two are opposites. We cannot assume that Iran will never instigate a war for religious reasons, or that no rogue element of its government will ever share its weapons with outside religious groups. > Turn off Fox News. We can discuss the issues, but you cannot dismiss me by trying to claim I'm ignorant. I actually don't even watch Fox News, but I disagree with maligning Americans who do.
fsck--off 13y ago
Asymmetric warfare with multiple adversaries doesn't work that way. For example, Stuxnet did not make U.S power plants safe from malicious attackers. I recommend reading Ralph Langner's op-ed in the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/06/04/do-cyberattacks-on-iran-make-us-vulnerable-12/why-attack-when-we-cant-defend http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/06/04/do-cyberatta...
- smsm42 13y ago
  It did make word temporarily safer from Iran nuclear bomb though. Of course, it is only temporary, but almost everything you do is. As for the article, it claims that Stuxnet "opened the Pandora box", but it did nothing of the sort. Stuxnet by itself did not enable anything that wasn't possible before - it was possible for malicious actors to create attacks on US networked infrastructure, and it still is. Stuxnet changed nothing there. Criminals and security professionals know the possibilities for a long time. And are using them. Making it sound as if the evil US has again spoiled the paradise for everyone makes no sense, and the author, being the expert in the field, should have known better, but looks like his political views overcame his professional judgement here.
  - lostlogin 13y ago
    Does anyone series believe that Iran is a threat to the world. How about basing threat levels on previous actions? For example, who invades countries most often? Or who's military kills the most people? I've heard about WMD threats before - and who did the invading and killing in the end? That saga ended with almost everyone looking bad.
    - drivingmissm 13y ago
      Yes, Iran's totalitarian leadership is a threat to its neighbors, particularly Israel.
      - andy_ppp 13y ago
        A war between Israel and Iran would be an epic disaster; too bad to even consider leaders of either country being that stupid. I think the arming of Israel with nuclear weapons is probably the biggest mistake the US has ever made... If Israel didn't have nuclear weapons there would be no way I'd consider Iran trying to get them (at almost any cost - we should have aiming for a nuclear free world), but with the situation as it is I wholly sympathise with their position.
coldtea 13y ago
Not if you're a 800-pound gorilla against 30kg monkeys... Then offense is just offence.
- smsm42 13y ago
  Enough monkeys could take even 800-pound gorilla. In fact, it is considered a common knowledge that some bipedal monkeys regularly took 16000-pound mammoths, ate them and made dwellings out of their bones. So if I were a gorilla I wouldn't underestimate 30kg monkeys. Especially if they have advanced weaponry.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    In theory maybe. In actual life, the 800-pound gorilla is beating the shit out of monkeys, invades their villages, pushes them diplomatically, installs his lackey-monkeys in power in their jungles, and steals their resources. And he counts any nick or scratch on his body (inflicted by the monkeys tiny hands) as worthy of the lives of 10,000 monkeys -- which he considers almost subhuman and even talks openly of "bombing them back to stone age". Oh, and he maintains that he's the righteous and good one in all this, and it's doing it for their own good.
    - smsm42 13y ago
      If you look at what happens in the jungles, all this was happening before the colonial powers came in, and is still happening when they left. So, without going too much into appropriateness of calling these people "monkeys", I'd suggest maybe the gorilla is not the biggest problem they face.
pizza234 13y ago
We're not talking about fistfights here. The best solution is to prevent the problems; I hope you understand while reading this article (which went here on HN some time ago): http://news.yahoo.com/german-police-used-only-85-bullets-against-people-155155175.html http://news.yahoo.com/german-police-used-only-85-bullets-aga...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

The best defence is a good offence.

by ihsw 13y ago

The best defence is a good offence.

A catchy sound byte, but in almost all practical situations, the best defence is avoiding conflict. In fights: flee. In international affairs: diplomacy.

javert 13y ago
That is disasterous. That logic is why Chaimberlain allowed Hitler to get more and more and more power. ("Surely they'll agree to peace if we just let them have Poland.") It is also why my generation (I'm 27) will eventually have to fight a nuclear war that pits Iran against Israel and possibly the US. That war will potentially kill millions. And whose fault will it be? Obama's and Bush's. They will (if history is just and we don't change course) go down in history as potentially making mistakes that killed millions, just as Stalin and Hitler did. Or we could insist now (or, ideally, a few years ago) that Iran not develop nuclear weapons capability, if necessary fighting a minor tactical war to stop them. (There is NO reason to have Vietnam IV, where Afghanistan and Iraq are Vietnam II and III. Except of course socialism for defense contractors and altruism as we throw away trillions "re-building" the latter two countries.)
- jjoonathan 13y ago
  > That is disasterous. You should have hedged with "can be" instead of "is." Fighting preemtive wars can be disastrous too. > my generation (I'm 27) will eventually have to fight a nuclear war that pits Iran against Israel and possibly the US Do you seriously believe that? Sure, Iran will get to throw their weight around a bit more with nuclear power, but they're not that desperate or stupid. > Obama and Bush ... will go down in history ... just as Stalin and Hitler did No. > a minor tactical war [would] stop [Iran from developing nuclear weapons] Maybe. You complain about "throwing away trillions" fighting silly wars and re-building countries. You do realize that the exact same sell (fight a minor war, stop the terrorists!) was used for the last two multi-trillion-dollar debacles, right? Either we give them a bloody nose and they just try again (keeping their cards closer to their chest this time) or we spend trillions trying to install another puppet government.
- atmosx 13y ago
  USA made a war claiming that Iraq had Nuclear weapons. Apparently it didn't. The only one who gained anything from Iraq war, were 7 USA-based oil companies. Iran has lost the war vs Iraq a some years ago. As a European, I don't see Iran as a threat. But you probably do...
  - aioprisan 13y ago
    That's wrong. We do know that they had been trying to develop nuclear weapons for years. The first reactor was bought from France in the 70s and the Israelis bombed Iraq a few times to stop them from developing nuclear weapons. The same will happen with Iran if they do not stop enriching uranium above energy-related levels. Back to Iraq, there was evidence that was presented to Congress, and if you ask most of the people who voted to authorize the war based on the evidence, such as Hillary or John Kerry, they say they have no regrets in voting that way (i.e. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/ http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/). Now, in hindsight, whether all that evidence was correct is an entirely different debate.
    - atmosx 13y ago
      If you explain to me why Iran can not have nuclear weapons while USA and Israel (and France and the UK and Russia and Korea and China) can I'll give it a second thought. My personal view is that the USA was interested in the oil sitting there. End of story. Same thing with Ghadafi. The rest is politics to justify a war that doesn't make any sense. Indeed the Iraq war was Blair's political destruction in the UK. Why do you think no one wants to attack Syria? Out of lack of evidence ? At that level you don't need evidence, you create them...
      - smsm42 13y ago
        Your personal view is wrong, and, even worse, not very smart. It does not make any sense to spend this much money on getting Iranian oil - it could be just bought much cheaper (if all sanctions and impediments were removed), and US has plenty of oil that is not being developed anyway. >>> Why do you think no one wants to attack Syria? Because attack presumes you need to achieve something. There's nothing in Syria that can be achieved right now that would be a desirable target. Assad is evil, islamic fundamentalists that battle him are evil too, US has no power and no political will to reform Syria and make anything good out of that mess. Neither does anybody else. That's why Assad is not being removed - because after removing him nobody knows how to clean up the mess.
- crazytony 13y ago
  Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Agreement which allowed Germany to annex parts of Czechoslovakia at the end of September 1938. World War 2 started when Germany decided to invade Poland in late 1939. Germany was never given Poland. You get even the most basic history wrong and then proceed to say that Bush and Obama are historically equivalent to Stalin and Hitler? Never let facts get in the way of a good dogma.
  - paulnechifor 13y ago
    > World War 2 started when Germany decided to invade Poland in late 1939. Germany and the Soviet Union. Sure, the Soviets attacked after the Germans, but they split Poland between them before the invasion.
    - brdrak 13y ago
      Not just Poland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact
- gaius 13y ago
  The reality is that Britain wasn't ready. Chamberlain bought us the time needed to power up to fight the Battle of Britain in 1940. Which we won. 2 years later, having profited from selling weapons to both sides, America sees which way the wind is blowing and decides to join the winning team. PS You forgot Clinton bombing pharmaceutical plants in Sudan, then taking his eye off the ball to play his sax, schmooze with Hollywood and chase skirts, while the wheels of 9/11 were set inexorably in motion.
  - bananacurve 13y ago
    Your contortions, while amusing, rewrite history in order to maintain your unhealthy obsession with America's alleged wickedness. Sure, Europe won the war and the US tagged along. Right. Whatever you need to believe to try to hold your precious worldview together, reality be damned.
    - caf 13y ago
      The reality is probably that neither the US nor Russia could have defeated Germany alone. The GP is wrong that the US joined the "winning side" though - they joined the losing side, because a Europe united under one hostile power would be a fundamental security threat to the US.
      - smsm42 13y ago
        They could have. If they have started early. Longer they waited, harder it got to achieve.
  - dobbsbob 13y ago
    Battle of Britain was won because the Canadian air force shot down huge numbers of Messerschmitts, and because a German pilot screwed up and bombed London against orders not to do so, instead of focusing on air strips and bases. Result was Allies bombed German cities in retaliation and Hitler ordered London destroyed which took the focus off disabling the Royal AF, and allowed Britain to regain air superiority and stop the attack. Anyways this has nothing to do with RSA taking a bribe to sell feeble crypto products
- caf 13y ago
  It is also why my generation (I'm 27) will eventually have to fight a nuclear war that pits Iran against Israel and possibly the US. No, we won't. There is simply no geopolitical logic to Iran and Israel going to war.
  - javert 13y ago
    Umm, Iran is run by a council of religious fanatics. There is no logic to Iran.
    - abalashov 13y ago
      That may be (although it amounts to a gross oversimplification), but it's still a functional government and a self-interested bureaucracy. Daily life goes on in Iran much as anywhere else. Council of religious fanatics notwithstanding, and its occasional grandiloquent pronouncements also notwithstanding, Iran's government is mostly full of administrators and workers that implement things like water treatment, motor vehicle registration, low-income housing, zoning, meat inspection, and energy. There is most definitely logic to Iran, much as to any other actually-existing government. There's even logic to its foreign relations, underneath the ideological veneer. Imagine if someone thought US policy actually worked literally as presidential speeches suggest; you'd think they're an ignorant tool. "Everyone knows that speeches are just speeches," you'd say, with no connection to the actual practice of governance. It may surprise you to learn that it's like that in any state, including Iran. Disclaimer: US citizen living in Armenia, NW of Iran. None of the very numerous Iranians here leave one with the impression that they are from a place with "no logic". Turn off Fox News.
      - javert 13y ago
        > Imagine if someone thought US policy actually worked literally as presidential speeches suggest; you'd think they're an ignorant tool. "Everyone knows that speeches are just speeches," you'd say, with no connection to the actual practice of governance. I don't agree with this at all. For instance, Obama has done what he promised: More big government programs and spending, nationalized healthcare. People knew what they were getting with Obama when he ran for President. There are a lot of problems with America but I can't stand it when people attack it for reasons that it actually doesn't deserve. > None of the very numerous Iranians here leave one with the impression that they are from a place with "no logic". I was referring to the government, which was pretty explicit. Fundamentally, there is a tradeoff between religiosity and logic in any religious government. The two are opposites. We cannot assume that Iran will never instigate a war for religious reasons, or that no rogue element of its government will ever share its weapons with outside religious groups. > Turn off Fox News. We can discuss the issues, but you cannot dismiss me by trying to claim I'm ignorant. I actually don't even watch Fox News, but I disagree with maligning Americans who do.

fsck--off 13y ago

Asymmetric warfare with multiple adversaries doesn't work that way. For example, Stuxnet did not make U.S power plants safe from malicious attackers. I recommend reading Ralph Langner's op-ed in the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/06/04/do-cyberattacks-on-iran-make-us-vulnerable-12/why-attack-when-we-cant-defend http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/06/04/do-cyberatta...

smsm42 13y ago
It did make word temporarily safer from Iran nuclear bomb though. Of course, it is only temporary, but almost everything you do is. As for the article, it claims that Stuxnet "opened the Pandora box", but it did nothing of the sort. Stuxnet by itself did not enable anything that wasn't possible before - it was possible for malicious actors to create attacks on US networked infrastructure, and it still is. Stuxnet changed nothing there. Criminals and security professionals know the possibilities for a long time. And are using them. Making it sound as if the evil US has again spoiled the paradise for everyone makes no sense, and the author, being the expert in the field, should have known better, but looks like his political views overcame his professional judgement here.
- lostlogin 13y ago
  Does anyone series believe that Iran is a threat to the world. How about basing threat levels on previous actions? For example, who invades countries most often? Or who's military kills the most people? I've heard about WMD threats before - and who did the invading and killing in the end? That saga ended with almost everyone looking bad.
  - drivingmissm 13y ago
    Yes, Iran's totalitarian leadership is a threat to its neighbors, particularly Israel.
    - andy_ppp 13y ago
      A war between Israel and Iran would be an epic disaster; too bad to even consider leaders of either country being that stupid. I think the arming of Israel with nuclear weapons is probably the biggest mistake the US has ever made... If Israel didn't have nuclear weapons there would be no way I'd consider Iran trying to get them (at almost any cost - we should have aiming for a nuclear free world), but with the situation as it is I wholly sympathise with their position.

coldtea 13y ago

Not if you're a 800-pound gorilla against 30kg monkeys... Then offense is just offence.

smsm42 13y ago
Enough monkeys could take even 800-pound gorilla. In fact, it is considered a common knowledge that some bipedal monkeys regularly took 16000-pound mammoths, ate them and made dwellings out of their bones. So if I were a gorilla I wouldn't underestimate 30kg monkeys. Especially if they have advanced weaponry.
- coldtea 13y ago
  In theory maybe. In actual life, the 800-pound gorilla is beating the shit out of monkeys, invades their villages, pushes them diplomatically, installs his lackey-monkeys in power in their jungles, and steals their resources. And he counts any nick or scratch on his body (inflicted by the monkeys tiny hands) as worthy of the lives of 10,000 monkeys -- which he considers almost subhuman and even talks openly of "bombing them back to stone age". Oh, and he maintains that he's the righteous and good one in all this, and it's doing it for their own good.
  - smsm42 13y ago
    If you look at what happens in the jungles, all this was happening before the colonial powers came in, and is still happening when they left. So, without going too much into appropriateness of calling these people "monkeys", I'd suggest maybe the gorilla is not the biggest problem they face.

pizza234 13y ago

We're not talking about fistfights here. The best solution is to prevent the problems; I hope you understand while reading this article (which went here on HN some time ago): http://news.yahoo.com/german-police-used-only-85-bullets-against-people-155155175.html http://news.yahoo.com/german-police-used-only-85-bullets-aga...

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]