You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Self-defense is a Civil Right! STAND UP! (Infamous Shotgun Video at Freedom Plaza)
Why not a nuke? Or a chemical weapon? The tool used directly relates to the amount of damage done. Yes, we need to deal with predators, but we also should deal with the tools available to those who want to cause the most damage. I'm not saying government laws are necessarily the answer (see my post for more on that).
Yes, why not? You want to pay the costs of maintaining a nuke, securing it, and insuring yourself or your company? Go for it. Governments, as I have written already, have not done a very good job of maintaining those weapons.
Because, in my mind, these weapons only have one purpose: massive wholescale destruction and death. Desiring such a tool, IMO, is not a sign of a healthy, peaceful individual.
It is if that healthy, peaceful individual is under threat from a nuclear power, and nothing else will deter that power from taking what is yours, including your life.
MAD is a thing, and it has been working for longer than Moore's Law has held.
It's kept India and Pakistan from waging all out conventional war, despite the frequent incitements of border skirmishes.
I'm not saying it's good that such deterrents are necessary. I'm saying that wanting to cause wholesale destruction and death isn't why people have nuclear weapons.
The threat of returning violence with violence isn't peace, but it's better than war.
I'd love to get rid of them too, but I do not have a magic wand to wave to make that happen. Without governments though, the market might be able to do it. Again, who's going to insure you if you have one? Who's going to pay the damages when you use it? It would be a bloody expensive mess. Because of governments though, those systems are not in place. Governments, as usual, have special protections, are above the law, enjoy a huge double standard, and have a monopoly on force.
Spot on! At this point, that is one of the reasons that North Korea's leader is still in power, not necessarily because he has nuclear capability, but because China has stated that if Trump tries for a regime change there, like in Iraq for instance, they will step in. That is where the power stale mate takes place, like you have already stated, not peace, but better than war.
I heard a likely scenario this morning. NK gets an ICBM. Then they invade SK. Who's going to stop them?
Oh, you want to stop us? Okay, fine. We'll send an ICBM to Seattle. Are all the people there worth saving the people in SK?
All the while China sits back and laughs... Er, no, they don't sit back. They invade Taiwan.