henry quirk wrote:"...it can be a real problem."
Which is, again, the tool user, not the tool.
The tool user is not a problem without the tool.
henry quirk wrote:And, again: eye of the beholder.
Nation X has atomics and thinks that's a fine thing.
Nation P thinks nation X's possession of atomics is deplorable (but believes its own possession of atomics is just dandy).
*shrug*
It's not that simple. Plenty people think there own countries ownership of weapons is deplorable, sometimes because they believe it makes them a target, sometimes because they are used against themselves, sometimes because they simply don't feel it is necessary to have the capability to exterminate thousands or millions of people they have never met and mean them no harm.
henry quirk wrote:Change nation X and nation P to Joe and Stan; change atomics to shotguns.
Same problem; same lack of credible solution.
Same pointlessness; Joe and Stan might feel safer because they are armed, but since each knows the other is probably armed, any confrontation is artificially escalated.
henry quirk wrote:Alway: it comes down to the use of force (a gun, a bomb) to extinguish the use of force (a gun, a bomb).
Irony, anyone?
Why is that irony?
henry quirk wrote:##
“we can't ask America”
Damned straight!
HA!
What I don't understand is why, if you are so indifferent to people, you bother to engage them?