nostr:npub1pt6l3a97fvywrxdlr7j0q8j2klwntng35c40cuhj2xmsxmz696uqfr6mf6 nostr:npub1w4jud2zhl9ztd5pycpzsq9nf07c3vcguavtrc6jypvtd6qealy9sl8cead nostr:npub1g0uss0sjsgxwmhqxgnvlj0zv9ru89xwfyktkcjc0kgy8syxj79ss383vfw game theory dictates equal retaliation. so single hits are fine as long as you are absolutely certain that your opponent understands your intentions and are willing to suffer a single hit in exchange. but of course with the guarantee of equal retaliation what's the point of going to the trouble?

> if you attempt to retaliate we will use all of them

doesn't work with an opponent on equal footing (ie capable of a sufficiently large exchange). the other party being afraid doesn't enter into it, it's a simple matter of fact. if struck there _will_ be an equivalent level of retaliation

if the opponent is weak or somehow politically unstable then sure, that sort of intimidation might work. or it might not. do you really want to take that risk?