It’s not a one-way street on principle. Italy could go do whatever it wanted. It’s a one-way street in capabilities to take action.
There isn’t anything stopping Italy, the sovereign state, from doing anything it thinks it could do. What is stopping it from bombing San Francisco (besides it not making sense whatsoever) would be that the US would physically stop the Italian Air Force and navy.
The US spend years building the UN and the system of international law and it benefits a lot from it. The US is like 4% of the world population and 2% of the area, but dominates pretty much anything you care to measure. It is really not in US interest to overthrow the current system. Its wild that the main threat to international order is coming from the US. Not just this latests development, but the talk of annexing Canada and Greenland, the undermining WTO and WHO etc. Read Hobbes, even the strong do not benefit from “jungle law”.
People who drive policy believe it has already collapsed; now it’s just about asserting control over the resources that will let US(or them personally) thrive in an isolationist, post-AGI world.
The lunatic fringe has long seen global institutions as arms of a shadowy conspiracy to destroy national sovereignty and impose a world government. Far from being instruments for exerting US control, they’re seen as holding us down.
It’s just like vaccines. Why would a country deliberately weaken and sicken its population by discouraging the most effective medical interventions ever devised? Because the nuts have take over and conspiracy theories have gone mainstream.
The point is we should be adult enough in 2026 to have an international order that we can draw a line between our modern behavior and what we did in the bronze age.
If you think this kind of caveman-era diplomacy is the future And want humans to be a multi-planetary species then lol, good luck.
This word is doing a lot of lifting here. You are essentially saying "the world should be better" without even a hint of suggestion of what a minority of countries could do to achieve it (in the presence of adversarial, nuclear states)
Let's say someone is sick and they want to roll around in dog shit to cure themselves. I can say that's a bad idea and not be a doctor with a clinical diagnosis. That's a valid position.
Unilaterally bombing a country, overthrowing its government and installing a puppet leader to capture its oil reserves can be called a bad idea.
I don't need to have a fellowship at Georgetown or some sophisticated alternative.
Some things are obvious: stabbing your eye is a bad idea. no ophthalmology degree required.
It's also rather telling that nobody in Caracas seems to have really tried to stop the US from doing this, it doesn't take all that much to shoot down at least one helicopter.
You'd expect them to have air defenses on high alert 24/7 prepared to immediately respond to any US actions.
Much of this stuff is incredibly easy to hide, hard to imagine that. Surely you'd want to have MANPADS distributed widely in preparation for a possible US strike too.
No not really. Actual leftists (as opposed to authoritarians who have seized the language) have a tendency to cede power gracefully.
Look at Dilma Rousseff who stepped down without much of a fight. Mujica, Allende, Morales, the left wing is really bad at holding on to power because they give into perceptions and affectations of mass sentiment regardless of their authenticity or accuracy.
Hundreds of billions in support, massively increased defense spending, and hefty sanctions are obviously nothing..
Also much more people have been to Italy,or at least know the country and it's culture compared to Ukraine. So the Fallout in Public Opinion would be way worse. China would also be salivating at an Opportunity to isolate the US, and that would be one presented on a silver platter
Public opinion is dead, what matters is policy makers opinion on controlling financial interests in the West, and what the CCP politbureau thinks. One is a mongrel divisive semi-hereditary plutocracy, the other is a reimagined empire that clearly has a long game going. I don't think anyone cares for the public at large, at least to the extent the public doesn't get any wild ideas like having an opinion and expressing it with a pitchfork.
Yes, you're right. It just that the comparison with Ukraine (invaded for no rational reason) + 'wiping out' made me think sejje was making a stronger (?) hypothetical.
I think we're have strayed too far from the point of ´might makes right' is bad, actually. GP very clearly chose Italy as an example because it's less polemic than the obvious option with a enormous manufacturing base and nukes.
To be clear, if we are talking about a salt-the-earth level conventional bombing for pure annexation / genocide of a EU nation the French would:
1. Remind the US via diplomatic means that they have nuclear subs and the will to use them.
2. If ignored, select some non-mainland territory (PR or Hawaii) and make a ultimatum. Mention that if the US does not desist they will wipe it, but will not launch attacks on the continental US.
3. Repeat 2 until they stop or escalate.
The French would absolutely do this, the thing you propose is so beyond the pale (even now) that the only conclusion is that the French would be next.
Absolutely. Submarine launched and with 10000km range it doesn’t even have to be in open seas. Now France would get obliterated too in response but we’re talking a scenario where the US has already « deleted » Italy so the game theory leans fatalistic
Pariahship only really matter if you care. Look at both India and China. For the past 80 years countries cared about being pariahs because there was only one real country: the United States of America. Today, there are a handful of truly sovereign countries (America, China, India, Russia, Ukraine, Iran, North Korea) who will actually defend themselves without resorting to nominal allies .
In the normal state of human affairs, being a pariah doesn't matter as long as your goals get done
I don’t know how many Americans actually approve of this. The left will hate it. Trump’s base has largely been isolationist.
Obviously if someone like Italy bombed us we would invade and beat the shit out of them. We did a two decade, trillions of dollars revenge tour for like 2700 people dying.
(I’m not advocating for any of this but US policy is pretty consistent. Part of the value of a US passport is knowing (and everyone else knowing) that the government will go to incredible lengths to get you back.)
I don't know either but I've spotted two comments in this thread that pretty much argued for that. Multiply that by the US population ratio vs HN size and it could really add up.
Given the Jan 6th insurrection attempt (which made trump ineligible for office) I think a clear eyed spectator thinking deeply about the US political situation would find that his base will think whatever he tells them to think
The point is we say "well some people don't think much of their elected leader in X, so that justifies us destroying their cities, overthrowing their government and killing hundreds of thousands of people there!"
Alright, is this the global rule now? Where's the cutoff? Trump is getting 41%, is that low enough? Who gets to overthrow Washington? My vote is the Swedes, they seem pretty nice.
The US isn’t too progressive about addiction. The culture tends to blame it on the individual vs. the environmental causes (including over prescription of opioids) that lead to it.
We’ve pressured China to crack down on fentanyl and its precursors, which they have to some extent, but there isn’t someone to invade, really, to stop it.
Can you truly not see the fundamental difference here? Taking drugs is voluntary and the risk of drugs being laced is known by effectively everyone. Comparing THAT to people getting incinerated in their office place is nothing short of daft and insulting.
Beyond the other replies to your 'point', fent has nothing to do with Venezuela⁰. It's pretty obvious if you think about it for 5 seconds, it's a dense synthetic opioid. Is there incredible chemistry knowhow in the quite far off Venezuela? No. It makes as much sense as making meth on the Peruvian jungle.
The precursors are made in legal-ish Chinese and Indian labs and shipped to the US and Mexico (y'know close where the users are). It's finished state-side or in Mexico where the DEA has less power. In fact one of the routes is:
China Lab -> Conventional Post -> Porch of a clueless gringo with a new 'online job'-> Smuggled to Mexico -> Mexican Lab -> Smuggled to the USA -> Distribution
You say you'd disapprove a violent action. But when it actually happens? I've seen explicit support for Luigi from many otherwise apolitical and non-violent people.
Because they see what the insurance exec was doing through his job as itself being violence, as it resulted in many deaths.
They view Luigi's alleged actions as self-defense/ defense of others, i.e. morally justified.
I wouldn't personally morally disagree with someone Luigi'ing Maduro or the other guy mentioned according to that same standard, but in this situation and the knock-on hypotheticals of government intervention, this is not an individual using personal force according to their beliefs, these are governments (which have no moral rights, just the assertion/ imposition of authority by violence) expropriating them for political purposes. So not defense of others.
That's quite different. Luigi killed the banker. You're thinking of Thomas Crooks. I don't think I've seen too many Crooks fanboys.
And even then, there's a difference between that and say if it was a sniper squadron working for say, let's pick the Azerbaijan military or any other organized state force.
Anyone can already bomb the United States, and I think most people here in the US just don't imagine it happening here, no matter how much we invite a military response.
The only country I could imagine doing this is North Korea, because, while we would carpet bomb them, they can delete Seoul from the map with traditional artillery that we can’t stop.
But I don’t think that their leaders are actually suicidal. They’ve played their hand pretty well over the years, for their own survival and enrichment (no pun intended.)
Your way of life got destroyed by a guy in a cave half the world away, and then a dictator of a small country finished the job with some propaganda and some cash to grease the right palms. A response can be quite effective even if it isn't by men in uniform.
It's not "my" way of life. I'm not american. I'm just saying that it's a basic geopolitical fact that anyone who's actually foolish enough to declare war on the USA is going to get killed.
Military response means men in uniform battling for their country. Terrorism is not a military response, it's one of several ways to cope with the enemy's superior military forces. They can't overtly bomb america back to the stone age, so they resort to tradecraft and clandestine operations.
It actually works, which is why governments pull all the stops when it comes to fighting terrorists. Even this plays into their ideological objective of forcing america to compromise on its founding principles, thereby corrupting it from within.
> I'm just saying that it's a basic geopolitical fact that anyone who's actually foolish enough to declare war on the USA is going to get killed.
That's mostly true. But a bunch of Saudi's got away with it and are still getting away with it.
> They can't overtly bomb america back to the stone age, so they resort to tradecraft and clandestine operations.
> It actually works, which is why governments pull all the stops when it comes to fighting terrorists. Even this plays into their ideological objective of forcing america to compromise on its founding principles, thereby corrupting it from within.
Precisely. So now try to imagine what the effect would be if the USA started to engage in wars on the American continent. You reap what you sow and if you're the biggest bully on the block that isn't going to be any use if you can't protect your backside.
All this talk of invading Greenland, Canada, Mexico, Cuba and I probably missed some is going to backfire spectacularly, and in many ways it already does.
On the world stage I see everything on display that we try to teach our children to avoid. Lying, bullying, law breaking, it's all in our faces. And the real problem is that it is supported and even celebrated on television, in print, and socia media.
To put this in perspective, Ukraine before Russian invasion had already lost 11 million people, that left the country because it was ruled by oligarchs and mobsters. 11 millions over 52 millions makes it a gran total of 21% of the population. Making it the fourth worse demographic decline in the world. Does it mean Russia was right?
If you have some hard numbers supporting how much Americans don't like Trump and how shit is their life under Trump, then ..maybe? (Also, why the USA, why not start with North Korea, Venezuela etc first.)
We kinda have the obligation to ensure that Earth is not a practical hell for many people.
"Bomb San Francisco" can mean many things, and it is ultimately a Trolley Problem[0], but the answer is not a simple no.
There isn’t anything stopping Italy, the sovereign state, from doing anything it thinks it could do. What is stopping it from bombing San Francisco (besides it not making sense whatsoever) would be that the US would physically stop the Italian Air Force and navy.