schizoidman@lemmy.zip to Europe@feddit.orgEnglish · 7 天前Why the EU should – but won’t – fire its ‘trade bazooka’ at the USwww.euractiv.comexternal-linkmessage-square12fedilinkarrow-up198
arrow-up198external-linkWhy the EU should – but won’t – fire its ‘trade bazooka’ at the USwww.euractiv.comschizoidman@lemmy.zip to Europe@feddit.orgEnglish · 7 天前message-square12fedilink
minus-squareValmond@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·edit-27 天前Having the weapon is better than using it up IMO. So that the threat can be used more than once.
minus-squareStinkyFingerItchyBum@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up31·7 天前The threat has to be credible to work. Not using it now means there is no weapon.
minus-squaresaimen@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8·edit-27 天前Yeah you have to show its destructive power and that you dare to use it first to be a potent threat (see Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
minus-squaremanxu@piefed.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·6 天前Agreed. Once you use the ACI, you’ve fired all the bullet (singular intentional) you had, and there is plenty more Trump can do.
Having the weapon is better than using it up IMO. So that the threat can be used more than once.
The threat has to be credible to work. Not using it now means there is no weapon.
Yeah you have to show its destructive power and that you dare to use it first to be a potent threat (see Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
Agreed. Once you use the ACI, you’ve fired all the bullet (singular intentional) you had, and there is plenty more Trump can do.