• NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    6 months ago

    Ok, good? All you can do with Iron Dome is shoot down mortar rounds and slower-moving rockets (and maybe drones?) - it really only works for defense. I don’t see the problem.

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      In general I love the idea of the US moving more and more towards only supplying defensive munitions to countries (such as the long list of really fucked up countries we deal arms to that would surprise most people).

      We could always take special action to supply offensive arms in response to justified conflicts such as in Ukraine, but let’s not let authoritarians build up a stockpile of offensive capabilities from US sweat during times of peace. That’s a recipe for less peace.

      But by all means we should let allies buy as much defensive capabilities as they desire.

      Being an ally to the US should be more associated with the benefits of protection from bullies than capacity to bully.

      (And most important IMO is that we don’t allow selling tech officially or privately by US corporations to enable authoritarians to abuse their own citizens. Something we very much do and I really wish we didn’t.)

      • hark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        My issue is with the definition of defense, seeing as the US’s department of war is called the department of defense and in the past israel’s actions have been excused as a right to defend itself.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’m fine with this model. Defend them from attacks, but don’t help them offensively. And leverage our defensive aid to strongarm them into not being genocidal.