Hacker News Reader

Comment by empath-nirvana | Hacker News Reader

It's pretty much always better to not get into a war than to win a war.

That's a succinct way to put it. Does anybody have any suggestions for following up on this line of thinking? I wonder what other, maybe technical scenarios, where this might also be true?

It's better for an error message to explain what the end user likely needs to know, rather than you heroically debugging it for them.

Here's a good read that is already very relevant wrt Gaza, and likely will be even more relevant wrt Iran.

https://acoup.blog/2022/10/21/collections-strategic-airpower...

There is already a war or two, just undeclared. Is it really better to let the aggressor keep attacking and killing while you sit and watch it happen thus sending signal to all others how weak you are?

It is impossible to tell if you are referring to Iran or Israel or maybe both.

I was of course referring to US. As Ben Hodges put it yesterday:

"We've got to muster the political will, industrial capacity, economic leverage, and military capability to defeat Russia first in order to isolate/deter Iran and deter China from making a terrible miscalculation."

No reaction to Crimea send clear message to Russia. US let Ukraine happen. No reaction to Iranian drones in Ukraine emboldened Iran resulting in 7the and now 14th. Again no response. Who will try next, NKorea or China?

> the aggressor

Which one are we talking about?

I think this sort of discussion is best left off HN.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com