World News@lemmy.worldbyRandAlThor@lemmy.ca1 yearIsrael threatens Iran’s top leader after missiles damage hospital and wound more than 200www.politico.com English 469192
givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish1 year Depends on who’s stronger. Now it depends on who is willing to throw enough bodies thru a meat grinder, bomb civilians, or nuke everything… If assassinations on the table, none of that shit matters if you personally get killed before you order it used Every aggressive country would prioritize personal defense and strategic assassination squads. Which again, I’d see as an absolute win over thousands or even millions of people dying. There’s no down sound. 586%6
real_squids@sopuli.xyzEnglish1 yearWhat happens if one country invades the other which doesn’t posses the tech necessary to kill the leader? eg cruise missiles, bunker busters, or modern aviation in general 167%2
real_squids@sopuli.xyzEnglish1 yearNot really, there are some good examples of underdogs winning (without cruise missiles for example). edit: and we’re not talking strictly conventional. also that’s not what “no downsides” means 050%1
Now it depends on who is willing to throw enough bodies thru a meat grinder, bomb civilians, or nuke everything…
If assassinations on the table, none of that shit matters if you personally get killed before you order it used
Every aggressive country would prioritize personal defense and strategic assassination squads.
Which again, I’d see as an absolute win over thousands or even millions of people dying.
There’s no down sound.
What happens if one country invades the other which doesn’t posses the tech necessary to kill the leader? eg cruise missiles, bunker busters, or modern aviation in general
Then that country would lose in a conventional war also?
Not really, there are some good examples of underdogs winning (without cruise missiles for example).
edit: and we’re not talking strictly conventional. also that’s not what “no downsides” means