schizoidman@lemmy.zip to Europe@feddit.orgEnglish · 2 months agoWhy the EU should – but won’t – fire its ‘trade bazooka’ at the USwww.euractiv.comexternal-linkmessage-square12linkfedilinkarrow-up198arrow-down13
arrow-up195arrow-down1external-linkWhy the EU should – but won’t – fire its ‘trade bazooka’ at the USwww.euractiv.comschizoidman@lemmy.zip to Europe@feddit.orgEnglish · 2 months agomessage-square12linkfedilink
minus-squareValmond@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6arrow-down1·2 months agoHaving the weapon is better than using it up IMO. So that the threat can be used more than once.
minus-squareStinkyFingerItchyBum@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up31·2 months agoThe threat has to be credible to work. Not using it now means there is no weapon.
minus-squaresaimen@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8·2 months 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 months 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.