3 ms·

Wait ... what? You now believe that (more efficient) self destruction is a good thing?

rhacker 8y ago
That is what he said.
OtterCoder 8y ago
Almost all people do, deep down. The Vikings, the Mongols, the Romans, the Aztecs, cannibals, headhunters, human sacrificers, they are us, and are not that far removed in time. To be human, really, is to be breathtakingly kind, selfless, and noble, but it's also to be cruel, bloody, and vicious. Christians call that bloody side of us the "natural man," a creature in direct opposition to the "spiritual man," who values life and goodness. Gandhi called this dichotomy the "animal" and "human" lives. Hobbes called the lust for physical power over others a, "perpetual and restless desire". If you want to create a safe and good society, you can't ignore either half of human nature.
joshsabol46 8y ago
If you believe in hegemony, it's reasonable to want one entity to have a better (more efficient) weapon.
bihnkim 8y ago
If people are going to go to fight until one side is wiped out, minimizing attrition and ending the war more quickly and convincingly may be seen as a measure to minimize casualty. This is not necessarily my personal view, but one way logic could be applied to this statement.
- Aeolun 8y ago
  The problem is that if both sides are really good at wiping out the other quickly, they might wipe each other out before they realize the other side has the same capability.
rebuilder 8y ago
Maybe it's the argument that we can't avoid wars, so it's best to make them as quick as possible? One way to do that is to make sure you can eradicate the other side's military might with overwhelming force. I think this is the kind of question where it is good to ask what the alternative to the terrible reality we're creating would realistically be.
tomjen3 8y ago
There are evil people in the world. People willing to commit genocide and enslave other peoples. People who will operate extermination camps, walk into a concert strapped with a suicide west to deliberately kill children, etc. Yes, I want a more efficient way to kill these people, and I want the US to have that. Not because the US is perfect, not because I am a fan of the Iraq war, but despite all the real difference, the US tries pretty hard not to hit civilians, and the others deliberately targets them. Maybe some day we won't have to kill each other anymore. That would be awesome, but tit-for-tat is the best strategy.
- Aeolun 8y ago
  I am wondering what efficient way you can think of to kill suicide bombers? They’re pretty much 100% effective at killing themselves. It would be much more relevant if we could find a way to keep them alive.

That is what he said.

Almost all people do, deep down. The Vikings, the Mongols, the Romans, the Aztecs, cannibals, headhunters, human sacrificers, they are us, and are not that far removed in time. To be human, really, is to be breathtakingly kind, selfless, and noble, but it's also to be cruel, bloody, and vicious. Christians call that bloody side of us the "natural man," a creature in direct opposition to the "spiritual man," who values life and goodness. Gandhi called this dichotomy the "animal" and "human" lives. Hobbes called the lust for physical power over others a, "perpetual and restless desire". If you want to create a safe and good society, you can't ignore either half of human nature.

joshsabol46 8y ago

If you believe in hegemony, it's reasonable to want one entity to have a better (more efficient) weapon.

bihnkim 8y ago

If people are going to go to fight until one side is wiped out, minimizing attrition and ending the war more quickly and convincingly may be seen as a measure to minimize casualty. This is not necessarily my personal view, but one way logic could be applied to this statement.

Aeolun 8y ago
The problem is that if both sides are really good at wiping out the other quickly, they might wipe each other out before they realize the other side has the same capability.

rebuilder 8y ago

Maybe it's the argument that we can't avoid wars, so it's best to make them as quick as possible? One way to do that is to make sure you can eradicate the other side's military might with overwhelming force. I think this is the kind of question where it is good to ask what the alternative to the terrible reality we're creating would realistically be.

tomjen3 8y ago

There are evil people in the world. People willing to commit genocide and enslave other peoples. People who will operate extermination camps, walk into a concert strapped with a suicide west to deliberately kill children, etc. Yes, I want a more efficient way to kill these people, and I want the US to have that. Not because the US is perfect, not because I am a fan of the Iraq war, but despite all the real difference, the US tries pretty hard not to hit civilians, and the others deliberately targets them. Maybe some day we won't have to kill each other anymore. That would be awesome, but tit-for-tat is the best strategy.

Aeolun 8y ago
I am wondering what efficient way you can think of to kill suicide bombers? They’re pretty much 100% effective at killing themselves. It would be much more relevant if we could find a way to keep them alive.