2 ms·
>But I also read the headlines. If you're post war, and your neighbor isn't, and you're not going to fight, and his people are... that doesn't end well for you.
by incomingpain 5y ago
>But I also read the headlines. If you're post war, and your neighbor isn't, and you're not going to fight, and his people are... that doesn't end well for you.
Are we going to keep pretending we don't have nukes and bioweapons?
>You say your guy is a warlord who taxes you at the point of a gun and threatens your freedom? Yeah, the other guy is going to kill some of you, and then tax you at the point of a gun and threaten your freedom. Maybe more so than your current guy.
The other guy is going to kill some, I agree. Then withdraw as of humanity starts dying. While our vaccinated people are immune to our bioweapon.
>So, in the ideal world, yes, you're right. But this is not the ideal world.
We have unprecedented peace because the threat of weapons of mass destruction. WMDs is a difficult risk to deal with.
Can we all just agree not to do the war thing anymore?
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoNo. We can't. That should be obvious by now. And, for your approach to work, every country would have to have WMDs, or else the US (or somebody) would have to use their WMDs in defense of every country. It is very much not clear that your approach would be strictly better than the current state of affairs.