204
Pentagon used Grok AI to fire 2,000 missiles at Iran, official says (www.independent.co.uk)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -10 points 1 month ago (1 child)

Serious answer, I heard somewhere that apparently it's common to start a war with an attack that will get the population of the opposing country angry. Killing children is an effective way to do that. If I remember correctly, the point is to get the country to attack back, so you can better justify the war to your own population.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 38 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    That makes no sense. You are already at war. You have already justified it. Getting the other country to defend harder is not what you want. You want to win.

    Bombing a school wasn't 5D chess by Trump. It was incompetence.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    what do you mean it doesn't make sense?

    it worked for 9/11 didn't it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago

    Wait what? Worked for who? Al Qaida has been decimated, the Taliban were decimated for aiding them, most people directly involved with 9/11 have been killed in violent ways and the holy land has been so absolutely ravaged by war that it may never recover. From a strategic point of view, 9/11 was a disaster.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I don't see how it doesn't make sense to build the justification after attacking. It takes time for people to actually show their disagreement in a way that hurts the state and they're quick to forget once an attack hits them. Also, it still makes sense for the state to build further justifications even if they've already justified it. For this instance in particular, I don't think there really was any justification and if I remember correctly, the population heavily disagrees with this war.

    I also think it's a big mistake to equate everything that the state does under Trump to him just being stupid, it makes you blind to what's actually being planned and carried out. You should always try to analyze what the intent behind actions like this is and only if you can't find any reasons at all is it maybe justified to say it's just the government being stupid.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago

    I don't see how it doesn't make sense to build the justification after attacking.

    You are already bombing. The justification is done. Politically it reduces justification because the public (as was shown) is now against the bombing. When Trump attacked Venezuela, he didn't bomb a school, wait a week, and then kidnap Maduro.

    Getting the other country to attack to justify war only works if you either make it look like they attacked first (false flag), or have deniability on your attack so their retribution can be spun into a first attck. (Secretly bomb the school with spies but leave evidence so they know it was you but can't prove it.)

    So there is absolutely no reason militarily or politically.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent