3 ms·
More arms means more dead people? The potential, perhaps, but I don't believe, even though for many years, we kept ramping up more and more nuclear arms, there
by sukuriant 15y ago
More arms means more dead people? The potential, perhaps, but I don't believe, even though for many years, we kept ramping up more and more nuclear arms, there was more and more nuclear destruction. You might say the presence of those weapons dissuaded another's use of them.
- bandushrew 15y agoIf you really want to make the argument that nuclear weapons haven't been a hugely destructive force, you need to wait until the game has ended. They are still there, and the opportunity for them to generate a lot of dead people to prove you wrong may still arise. That game isn't over yet.
- loup-vaillant 15y agoI was talking about firearms owned by private citizens, notably hand guns. Military weaponry is of course easier to control.