How so? Attacking a stronger enemy is generally foolish, but attacking a weaker enemy in the same manner can be an effective way of getting what you want. Even if it does turn out to be foolish, it won't be foolish for the same reasons.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

The idea that using direct force as a means of intimidation hasn't been viable since the rise of nationalism in the 19th century. Attacks like this are only useful insofar as they can cripple an enemy - in the case of both Japan-US in WW2 and US-Iran now, such is not the case.

At best, their nuclear program has been setback a few years - at worst, only a few months. And in both cases, the perception that it is necessary will have been strengthened considerably.

This is only a non-foolish move if, in context, either a war is going to start very soon or Iran's government is about to be overthrown. The latter I wouldn't count on; the former is just a different form of foolishness - and a worse one at that.

tl;dr; sucker-punching someone in the face is not how you make them eager for peace. It's how you make them realize that all you understand is war, which is a bit antithetical to negotiating a lasting peace.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

At best, their nuclear program has been setback a few years - at worst, only a few months.

Akshully, at worst, they have working nukes already.

[–] Alfredolin@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 weeks ago

Fuu-

insert terminator nuclear explosion gif

load more comments (7 replies)