Hacker News Reader

Comment by newsclues | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Restraint is not necessarily a show of weakness. The rebels behind the attack claimed only to have attacked two Israeli vessels but did not claim (possibly did not know) an intended attack against the US ship. Retaliating in this case would definitely escalate the fight, there are many good reasons to avoid doing that.

If showing restraint leads to repeated attacks, it's weakness.

This has been going on and escalating in the region for years, including the attacks on Americans in Iraq and Syria.

It's not just "rebels" it's groups sponsored by Iran, which is a formidable foe, but clearly restraint is just passive permission to carry on.

As someone that would have deployed to region, maybe I tolerate leadership weakness less than people who would be sitting comfortably at home.

Well the US Navy has already been attacking pirates there, in addition to weapons and military advisors to the Ukraine, patrols in the South China Sea and paying for (for the first time since Nixon visited China) weapons to Taiwan, plus occupation costs in Guantanamo Bay against the Cuban government's wishes, troops stationed on the North Korean border, naval patrols off the Venezuelan coast as New sanctions are considered, and the navy also sending more ships to the Persian gulf recently -

there are still those (like yourself) who want even more money given to the military industrial complex in pursuit of US worldwide imperial goals. Of course they monetarily benefit from.this (as you yourself said you do).

Myself I would rather the money go to fix bridges and schools in the US than bomb Gazan children etc.

"there are still those (like yourself) who want even more money given to the military industrial complex"

I didn't say that. It doesn't cost anything for the Commander in Chief to authorize the troops to defend themselves. The weapons are already bought and paid for.

Pretty dishonest to put words in peoples mouths.

> Restraint is not necessarily a show of weakness.

But that is how those people read it, nevertheless.

One might argue that a covert response at an unpredictable delay is a more impactful deterrent

Generally deterrence is most effective when acted upon immediately.

Nations are like children or criminals, if they do something wrong, you need to immediately act, in proportion to the action, to punish the bad behaviour. If you wait, people think they get away with it, and then when the eventual punishment catches up with them, they take it personally rather than attributing it to their actions.

Please read up on the theory of punishment.

And you, please read a few things beyond the "theory of punishment". Read some things about international relations. Read some things about game theory. And read what a Pyrrhic victory is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com