I suppose you could argue something along the (slightly different) positions that nuclear weapons reduce the likelihood of interstate conflict, and tasers incre

I suppose you could argue something along the (slightly different) positions that nuclear weapons reduce the likelihood of interstate conflict, and tasers increase the use of police force -- i.e. when war was the only recourse, the result was no recourse, and we were better off. Not convincing though IMO, but the point is pretty academic at this point so it's hard for me to say one way or another. Maybe we're all talking past each other? It's one thing to say that having recourse to block someone is good, but quite another to say that taking recourse to block someone is good.