The trick is to differentiate between those two potentialities. We, the world, need to work on that...
Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
This begs the question (and is related to the thread about avoiding stupidities) when is a country taking enough damage from another country to justify a violation of the latter's sovereignty but the damages stop accumulating after just a raid???
That's like pornography. I can't describe it but I know it when I see it...

The serious answers, plural, are that's in the eyes of the offended nation and can vary due to many things; what precisely was or will be raided and for what effect; is / was the raid designed to 'stop' damages or to destroy ability for more or other damages; is / was it designed for another purpose entirely?
I don't think such a case exists.
Perhaps not, I'm too lazy to search my memory banks just now -- may do so later. Now, simply recall the same thing could be said of Pakistan in 1945, the Internet in 1950, Al Qaeda in 1980,the G-20 in 1995 or South Sudan in 2005...

Things change. One adapts or one stays mired in the past.
A strategic raid in what's otherwise peacetime amounts to a backlash-prone aggression and can easily provoke a cascade of uncontrollable and possibly very undesirable effects.
Any type of war, warfare or warlike action does all that. That applies equally to the potential provocation(s) and / or provacateurs that might spur such a Raid in the first place.

Consider also that some such Raids might actually be Demonstrations or Feints and be aimed at an indirectly related target, result in no casualties to anyone and serve merely as a demonstration of capability -- or resolve.

The 'rules' are changing. Have in fact changed. They are not going back to those of the turn of the 20th Century -- or even the 21st. To paraphrase both the SAS and SBS mottoes; Who adapts wins -- by strength and guile...