schizoidman@lemmy.zipBanned from community to Europe@feddit.orgEnglish · 3 days agoWhy the EU should – but won’t – fire its ‘trade bazooka’ at the USwww.euractiv.comexternal-linkmessage-square12linkfedilinkarrow-up149arrow-down12
arrow-up147arrow-down1external-linkWhy the EU should – but won’t – fire its ‘trade bazooka’ at the USwww.euractiv.comschizoidman@lemmy.zipBanned from community to Europe@feddit.orgEnglish · 3 days agomessage-square12linkfedilink
minus-squareValmond@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·3 days agoHaving the weapon is better than using it up IMO. So that the threat can be used more than once.
minus-squareStinkyFingerItchyBum@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·3 days agoThe threat has to be credible to work. Not using it now means there is no weapon.
minus-squaresaimen@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·2 days agoYeah 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-up1·2 days agoAgreed. 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.