> What possible technical breakthroughs could justify the deaths of millions? The kind of technical breakthrough that saves billions? I'm not especially a fan

> What possible technical breakthroughs could justify the deaths of millions? The kind of technical breakthrough that saves billions? I'm not especially a fan of this approach, but the absolutist stance that you've taken seems obviously falsifiable. None of this is justification to start a war, nor would our ethics largely permit us to proceed towards uncertain success contingent upon the sacrifice of many lives. That said - for example the American Civil War was potentially a 'justifiable' war, costing many lives to improve lives; there is little reason to think that a technical breakthrough could not justify a war. --- NB: Besides - the GP talked about the 'technical breakthroughs outweighing the direct deaths'. It's certainly plausible that we've saved more lives since WW1/2 than we lost in WW1/2 on account of technology developed for the war. This has probably been studied and proven right/wrong, so it's entirely plausible to check (and to be curious about). That's not a justification to start a war necessarily, but that's not at all GP's phrasing.