Does he WANT worldwide eternal Jihad against the US/West?
If there's a better use for "Some people just want to watch the world burn" in the history of the world, I can't think of one. He's always been a toddler brain clueless to consequences and, in this case, he likes the idea that HE would get to be the Big Boy to push the Big Red Button. Fun toy.
There's only a single civilization-scale weapon effect in the inventory, and its usage reflects something more impactful than a mere "war crime".
Once the First Use Taboo is broached, nuclear explosives will be used for everything. Wherever you have a spare 100kg of payload and a hardened or area target - nuclear explosives, from a weapon effect perspective, are simply too good not to use, once the cat's out of the bag. It'll be like machine guns in the early days of WW1 - where they broke the taboo of using them on _civilized peoples_ - but in this metaphor each bullet being the most powerful device made by Man.
Breaking First Use - particularly against a non-existential[1] threats - might rank among the worst single decisions in human history.
That's not how that works. War crimes are war crimes, just like crimes are crimes whether the laws that define them are enforced or not is not relevant.
Morality starts with definition, and there are other ways to deal with these things than courts. For instance, boycotts.
Does he WANT worldwide eternal Jihad against the US/West? If there's a better use for "Some people just want to watch the world burn" in the history of the world, I can't think of one. He's always been a toddler brain clueless to consequences and, in this case, he likes the idea that HE would get to be the Big Boy to push the Big Red Button. Fun toy.
It’s only a war crime if there’s a bigger dog to enforce it.
There's only a single civilization-scale weapon effect in the inventory, and its usage reflects something more impactful than a mere "war crime".
Once the First Use Taboo is broached, nuclear explosives will be used for everything. Wherever you have a spare 100kg of payload and a hardened or area target - nuclear explosives, from a weapon effect perspective, are simply too good not to use, once the cat's out of the bag. It'll be like machine guns in the early days of WW1 - where they broke the taboo of using them on _civilized peoples_ - but in this metaphor each bullet being the most powerful device made by Man.
Breaking First Use - particularly against a non-existential[1] threats - might rank among the worst single decisions in human history.
[1] or non-existent
thankfully they will use LLM for targeting and it will all be over in a flash pfew
That's not how that works. War crimes are war crimes, just like crimes are crimes whether the laws that define them are enforced or not is not relevant.
Morality starts with definition, and there are other ways to deal with these things than courts. For instance, boycotts.
morality has nothing to do with crime or not. crime is always only ablout Law.
I condemn this behaviour.
What the actual fuck. That would be a war crime. A) don’t, and if you do, be ready to be immediately prosecuted.
People bandy this whole impeachment thing about but there’s nothing like a real crime against humanity to really pull out all the stops.
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47674286