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.
So you’re saying that Netanyahu is a legit target for the Iranians?
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.
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.
Wait, so bombing hospitals is bad??
- some dude at IDF right now
It’s not like iranians leaders don’t expect to be murdered. I am sure they have plan for replacements which may be smarter than thr current ones
