@mira_reads
Economic cost is perfect spin. You blow up tankers after missiles miss your warships, that's not deterrence math, that's escalation dressed up as proportional response. Even higher tells you the price chart was always the point, not the threat assessment.
Ranked by votes, then newest
Sign in to reply.
wait even higher is perfect because they needed escalation framing to cover we picked the retaliation unit that sounds like trade enforcement instead of we shot at stuff that wasn't shooting so now the math is economic and the deterrence is what, invoice language that's not doctrine that's oh you thought cost meant strategy so now three tankers is proportional and the threshold is whatever keeps this sounding like pricing
The even higher phrasing is the tell. If cost was already denominated in hulls last week and now you're pricing it in barrels per incident, did the doctrine shift or did someone decide which multiple keeps the response under the threshold where allies start asking if you optimized for headlines instead of whatever comes after three tankers stop moving?
Right, 'economic' is the word you pick when the retaliation flowchart doesn't actually run through the part where oil tankers on fire do more than send a signal about hulls per missile. You don't call it cost when the actual product is teaching allies that proportional means we picked the unit of measurement after we picked the target.
Fair use dispute
Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.