• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    I mean…

    Honestly the whole “assassinating a leader is against the rules” has always felt ass backwards when the alternative is a shit ton of people with essentially no say in the conflict dying.

    Let me take it back to Hammarubi.

    All these shitty world leaders can just take turns killing themselves like the bloody Sneeches, until we eventually end up with leaders who think peace is worth a shot.

    To me, that sounds like a self correcting and sustainable system. If a country’s government starts a war, the most likely result would be that political leader getting merc’d by the government of the country they attacked.

      • Arkouda@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 day ago

        The only reasons I can see that monster is still breathing is the power vacuum left behind would make the situation worse, and the US would royally fuck anyone who tried it.

    • real_squids@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 day ago

      “Leaders can have a little assassination, as a treat”

      Not too often, just enough to remind them of their humanity.

      If a country’s government starts a war, the most likely result would be that political leader getting merc’d by the government of the country they attacked.

      Depends on who’s stronger. I don’t think it’s gonna lead to stability every time, unless the leaders realize it’s better (read: profitable) to be at peace.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        Depends on who’s stronger.

        Now it depends on who is willing to throw enough bodies thru a meat grinder, bomb civilians, or nuke everything…

        If assassinations on the table, none of that shit matters if you personally get killed before you order it used

        Every aggressive country would prioritize personal defense and strategic assassination squads.

        Which again, I’d see as an absolute win over thousands or even millions of people dying.

        There’s no down sound.

        • real_squids@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          What happens if one country invades the other which doesn’t posses the tech necessary to kill the leader? eg cruise missiles, bunker busters, or modern aviation in general

    • Saleh@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      You will end up with leaders that will not meet each other or leave their countries. You will end up with leaders eternally paranoid that at any moment they could be assassinated by a foreign power.

      This will be a guarantee for much more wars, killing many more people than we already have.

    • Ogmios@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      The problem with assassinating leaders is that it turns the population into a headless mob, and plenty of innocents suffer tremendously anyways.

      Modern military technology has made such concerns much less important, as any conflict is increasingly devastating.

      • CalipherJones@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Yerp. Killing the leader leaves a power vacuum depending on the structure of the government. Power vacuums are the quickest way to a civil war.