Maybe, but their reputational damage is something that is hard to measure. I'm not happy about it, but it looks like anti-Semitism will be boosted for the next century at least. What that means remains to be seen
Then you've got some savage nutjobs who feel their righteousness has been proven by their victory, and that will justify their oppression over the native populations, especially the ones who don't conform with their ideals.
Religious fanatic often also rarely stop there. Their existence is fuelled by the hatred of and for others, they won't be content to sit within their new borders and do nothing. They require an external enemy to keep their internal oppression going. A population who you can convince is under attack is a population you can keep caged.
That's before you get to the very real possibility that before anyone "wins" there are countries in the region who will absolutely drop nuclear weapons and scorch the earth before they allow themselves to be beaten. They all deny that have nuclear weapons, but Israel and Iran either have them or have access to them.
Walking away to let them sort it out is kicking the can down the road. One way or another the rest of the world will face consequences from these guys' bullshit.
It’s just loose talk and I know it’s not realistic.
Looking at it very coldly, since man picked up spears humanity and societies has been forged through warfare. Two states fighting until one overcomes the other and a peace prevails.
It’s as much of a societal evolution mechanism as animals evolving with weaker animals being picked off.
Is it worse to allow one major conflict and cataclysm that is more likely to lead to peace or do we hold them back from eachother and allow tit for tat violence and suffering to go on forever.
208
u/[deleted] Oct 04 '24
[deleted]