2 ms·
A bit, but I was just quoting Jim Morrison to a friend, so there's that. :-D At the risk of pushing this thread well past the point of usefulness and too far
by cobrausn 13y ago
A bit, but I was just quoting Jim Morrison to a friend, so there's that. :-D
At the risk of pushing this thread well past the point of usefulness and too far into the abstract, you know the building could be used to quarter troops, store weapons, etc, so long as it is owned by the government, even not in time of war? Personally, I value the government owning large weapons more than I value them owning millions of small weapons. The large weapons are more likely to be used under the correct circumstances. I think that's part of why we overuse (IMHO) drones - it made it cheap to wage asymmetric warfare.
- Loughla 13y agoI'm aware that the could use it for storing troops and weapons, etc. But, these buildings are not expressly designed for warfare, and therefore could have other uses. In fact, it seems that we have this issue because there are steps in place to make sure these buildings get used for something else. It's a matter of design versus function. The buildings could be re-purposed for war, but they weren't expressly designed for it.