undefined | Better HN

0 pointsprawn3y ago0 comments

Thanks for thinking it through a bit more in the spirit of the question. That's a bit more what I was getting at. There are potentially instances where it starts to become a grey area (responsibility with both parties), and the separate question is who would the public deem responsible.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

analog313y ago· 2 in thread

I don't think it's a grey area at all. The first party is responsible for creating the situation, the second for how they deal with it. This happens all the time in cases where the police have to deal with someone who's threatening people.

prawnOP3y ago

That's the grey area I'm talking about though. If China sends a missile into the US, it's shot down, but there is collateral damage, Americans will overwhelmingly consider China responsible. If a Chinese airline flies a regular route and is abruptly shot down, and the plane crashes into a populated area, Americans would hopefully consider their own government responsible.

The grey area I'm musing about is in the middle, and how some portion of the public might be sympathetic, how this might be destabilising, and what avenues the agitator might explore.

analog313y ago

Indeed, an objective of psychological warfare (aka terrorism) is to turn a population against its own government.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse