Hacker Timesnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It’s hard to argue that an eye-for-an-eye response is unjustified, sure. But it’s easy to see that, in a conflict, direct, equivalent retaliation is often the least strategic response. It signals desperation (which reveals weakness), and also legitimizes your opponent’s actions. It hurts your political capital (allies lose confidence in you), which is a vital tool (e.g. coordinated international show of political/trade force). Given the current US leadership, though, it’s not surprising they’d press any button they can reach.


What would you propose?


That would be above my paygrade, but you’d start by asking what cards the US holds on the world stage: the dollar, oil, technology (for now anyways).


But that’s also eye for an eye, just of a different kind, is it not?


Well, I’m no pacifist. I’m saying that the latest US move will leave the world with two one-eyed superpowers still in conflict, still on equal footing, when we could’ve taken an arm or a leg.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: