Assuming you decide to retaliate at all?
2007-03-04 02:39:03 · 13 answers · asked by James 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Assume that you are not killed, but others may or may not have been. (you did not witness any death)
2007-03-04 03:44:06 · update #1
You make better decisions. Your mind is clearer. You have all the facts.
2007-03-04 02:47:08 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
The best known historical example is: 'World War I.'
After Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated, the Austria-Hungarian empire delayed retaliation. If they had retaliated immediately - nobody would have said a word. However by delaying their retaliation they gave Serbia time to form an alliance with Russia. This set off a chain of events that resulted in the First World War.
2007-03-04 13:38:45 · answer #2 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, that's a pretty broad question, but I was reading 'No Country for Old Men' last night, a novel by Cormac McCarthy (the title, by the way is from King Lear). A man who is being hunted is talking to a teenage runaway. She knows he has a gun in his bag, and he admits it. He asks her, "Do you have a gun?" She says, "Of course not. They're illegal." He says, "Let me ask you something, "When the shooting starts, would you rather be armed or legal?" In other words, you may not get a chance to retaliate if you wait.
2007-03-04 11:05:31 · answer #3 · answered by holacarinados 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The amount of time that elapses between the initial strike and your retaliation will dramatically effect any defence you put forward. If you killed him or her then you could NOT use provocation under the Homicide Act 1957. I know its extreme example!
Theres always the defence of Mistake as well.
2007-03-04 12:23:36 · answer #4 · answered by cadsaz 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Game theory proves that forgiveness pays: what a shame our leaders haven't learnt this!" ------ mesun1408
I know what it is that you're vaguely referring to, tit-for-tat and that famous experiment done regarding the selfish gene.
The only problem is, you don't understand what you're referencing even remotely.
Tit for tat was successful only in the long run. It was designed in a manner than meant it could not do any better than an opponent, but only just as well. Against a single opponent, like say the U.S. versus Terrorism, tit for tat could only get a draw at best. It only worked against many opponents, winning in the war of averages. It doesn't apply the way you want it to in this case, and even if it did, remember that tit for tat retaliated just as quickly as it forgave.
Swift to forgive and equally swift to retaliate.
2007-03-04 11:02:30 · answer #5 · answered by The_Music_Man 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If you wait, you will get the unexpected. If you retaliate, you get answers right away. Think before you act and results will come sooner than later.
2007-03-04 10:52:57 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
immediate retalliation is blind panic.you need to assess the situation first and think very hard about what you did in the first place to cause comebacks.MR,BLAIR.
2007-03-05 15:34:55 · answer #7 · answered by earl 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Killed, plain and simple.
2007-03-04 10:50:11 · answer #8 · answered by hisemiester 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Game theory proves that forgiveness pays: what a shame our leaders haven't learnt this!
2007-03-04 10:42:36 · answer #9 · answered by mesun1408 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Get them before they get you.
2007-03-04 11:12:30 · answer #10 · answered by David H 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋