3 ms·

Hearing someone bluntly say this made my skin crawl, you're okay with enormous economic imbalance in your favor backed up with no greater justification than the

Hearing someone bluntly say this made my skin crawl, you're okay with enormous economic imbalance in your favor backed up with no greater justification than the collective willingness of the society to which you belong to engage in mass murder against the members of societies to which you do not. That really has no ethical implications for you at all, personally?

Dylan16807 13y ago
Well reading your post rather bothers me because you automatically assume murder. Attempting to maintain the 'status quo' via military sounds like a default defensive action to me, fending off the attacks of others.
- etherael 13y ago
  "The ability to bomb specific other countries" sounds like the default go to defensive action to take in the event of external attack? I know a supranational fanatical religious terrorist organisation that happens to agree with you.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    That's how modern warfare between major powers works. You don't drive off a land invasion, you bomb each others' cities until someone cries uncle.
    - etherael 13y ago
      Actually I'd dispute that; modern warfare between major powers can only waged by proxy wars between lesser powers who do not have recourse to nuclear options. In the future as the destructive potential of smaller and smaller actors increases over time, humanity will have to get used to the idea that it can't go around just acting like a pack of spoiled murdering bastards with an entitlement complex, or it will end up destroying itself as the power threshold of the disenfranchised actors approaches mutually assured destruction scenarios. So perhaps in light of this it might be a good idea being practical to get used to that fact and stop acting like endless bullying war is a realistic long term foreign policy?
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    You quoted the wrong half of the sentence. It's maintaining the status quo that sounds defensive. And apparently I used the word 'default' in a confusing way. I did not mean 'default go to'. I meant that maintaining the status quo is by default a defensive thing. On top of that, it's not actual 'bombing' that you use most of the time to do that, but the 'ability to bomb'. Nobody actually has to get blown up.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

Dylan16807 13y ago

Well reading your post rather bothers me because you automatically assume murder. Attempting to maintain the 'status quo' via military sounds like a default defensive action to me, fending off the attacks of others.

etherael 13y ago
"The ability to bomb specific other countries" sounds like the default go to defensive action to take in the event of external attack? I know a supranational fanatical religious terrorist organisation that happens to agree with you.
- rayiner 13y ago
  That's how modern warfare between major powers works. You don't drive off a land invasion, you bomb each others' cities until someone cries uncle.
  - etherael 13y ago
    Actually I'd dispute that; modern warfare between major powers can only waged by proxy wars between lesser powers who do not have recourse to nuclear options. In the future as the destructive potential of smaller and smaller actors increases over time, humanity will have to get used to the idea that it can't go around just acting like a pack of spoiled murdering bastards with an entitlement complex, or it will end up destroying itself as the power threshold of the disenfranchised actors approaches mutually assured destruction scenarios. So perhaps in light of this it might be a good idea being practical to get used to that fact and stop acting like endless bullying war is a realistic long term foreign policy?
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  You quoted the wrong half of the sentence. It's maintaining the status quo that sounds defensive. And apparently I used the word 'default' in a confusing way. I did not mean 'default go to'. I meant that maintaining the status quo is by default a defensive thing. On top of that, it's not actual 'bombing' that you use most of the time to do that, but the 'ability to bomb'. Nobody actually has to get blown up.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]