I love how you use WW2 as an argument. Let me ask you, in your example. Suppose on the British side those people would have won, and Britain would not have had

I love how you use WW2 as an argument. Let me ask you, in your example. Suppose on the British side those people would have won, and Britain would not have had air power. We could ask the same question on the other side, and while it's not so easy to see without a good knowledge of history and the animosity and threats Germany faced between WW1 and WW2, but if Germany had refused to create air power it would have been bombed into the ground, it's people destroyed. So if one side had refused to create air power ... what would have happened ? Because we both know the answer here. What's more difficult to see is what would have happened if everyone (magically) refused to create it. But that would have enabled random other parties to quickly become a major threat, which would have had equally devastating consequences. The problem you have is that the logic is strongly on the side of creating more powerful weapons. A fair study of the cold war will reveal: the main reason we did not have WW3 is ... nuclear weapons. Einstein prevented it.