Retaliation would make you a bigger target that you might otherwise be. It's really no different than deciding not to use nukes first. So long as the leaders of nation states don't kill each other they are more likely to remain alive and in power.
One must also consider the objectives of a military campaign. You might not necessarily want to assassinate the political leadership of a nation state. That would make you responsible for the power vacuum. Your troops would be tied up and you'll spend much of your treasury propping up the region. It's inevitable if your goal is to annex territory to add to your nation state. But if your goal is to dissuade your opponent from taking the "wrong" actions you might prefer to beat them into submission and negotiate your preferred outcome from a position of strength.
Retaliation would make you a bigger target that you might otherwise be. It's really no different than deciding not to use nukes first. So long as the leaders of nation states don't kill each other they are more likely to remain alive and in power.
One must also consider the objectives of a military campaign. You might not necessarily want to assassinate the political leadership of a nation state. That would make you responsible for the power vacuum. Your troops would be tied up and you'll spend much of your treasury propping up the region. It's inevitable if your goal is to annex territory to add to your nation state. But if your goal is to dissuade your opponent from taking the "wrong" actions you might prefer to beat them into submission and negotiate your preferred outcome from a position of strength.
Good explanation