Hacker News Reader

I'm trying to think of potential grey areas in the middle where the agitator could say "It was minding its own business. It wasn't dangerous until you shot it down. That gas mix was part of the cooling system and would've been completely fine if you didn't launch a missile at it." And some portion of the host public could be convinced that this was a reasonable opinion and hold their government responsible. I don't think your example fits that.

View on HN

I think a good example for your hypothetical would be the sinking of a nuclear plant propelled ship. If country B invades the territorial waters of country A with a nuclear destroyer and country A destroys it, the fallout (morally and chemically) would still be on the aggressor for creating the situation where it's reasonable to expect their harmful payload would be destroyed.

I'm imagining something far less obviously threatening (balloon rather than a destroyer) and far less explicitly damaging (maybe a liquid or gas that would mix with the missile impact, and rain down barely noticeable granular substance that, oops, contaminates farm land).

I can appreciate this is quite far fetched given that the material would need to drop such a distance rather than completely disperse with wind, and not be super obvious about it (e.g., pellets).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com