The current summary on the home page contains bias / one-sided reporting.

> While the administration describes the strikes as a necessary move to stop nuclear weapons, the conflict has already seen accidental friendly fire and threats of a ground invasion.

The balance to the assertion "this was necessary" isn't "but there's been some consequences" -- it is an exploration of the truth of the assertion.

▲

gwerbin an hour ago | parent | next [-]

That's the same kind of non-balance you see in human-authored news all the time, to be fair.

▲

benzible 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And the legality of it as well.

▲

foxfoxx 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I agree and will be taking this feedback seriously. Daily briefings need more refinement since that is the first thing a user reads.

▲

1shooner 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How are the consequences of war not germane to its necessity?

	▲	stonogo 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They are, of course, but there are two different consequences involved in this assessment. One is "stop nuclear weapons" (the converse would be "do not stop nuclear weapons") and the other is "friendly fire incidents" (the converse would be "no friendly fire incidents"). Neither are directly related to the other, since the former is specific to this engagement and the latter happens in any combat.