IntronExon
Joined 8 years ago
Karma
3,403
Submissions
1,424
Member since
Jan 20
Recent submissions
Comment · 8 years ago
I’m asking a question you seem unwilling to answer. You invoked national security as a motivation to stay on the cutting edge of military science. I’m asking just what your definition encompasses, and pointing out that it’s clearly not just the sanctity of our borders. Traditionally national security is about the security of a nation, not securing its dominance; the latter goes by a different name. Our vast nuclear arsenal secures the former, but not the latter.
Comment · 8 years ago
There's also an argument to be made that remaining on the cutting edge of military science is a form of national security.
Your words, I’m asking who’s security? Our security while we pretend to own the world? Our security against invasion? How secure do we need to be, when we can already end all human life in 45 minutes?
Comment · 8 years ago
https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-killed-more-than-20-mil...
That’s tens of millions, and I’m being generous in ignoring how you’ve moved the goalposts. Your thesis is simply unsupportable, sorry.
Besides, we don’t know what the future holds, but in terms of raw possibilities we can now end all human life on Earth thanks to technology. That’s also new in the last 70 years. Hopefully we’ll never do it, but we could. Thst also flies in the face of the “technology reduces casualties” business. Of course, so does all of human history for thousands of years, but hey, let’s keep it simple.
Comment · 8 years ago
How many thermonuclear weapons do we need to be secure? Secure from what? Invasion? No one is invading a nuclear power.
Comment · 8 years ago
Oh for sure, you can get much more bang for your buck out of a swarm of MIRV’ed ICBMs carrying megatons of hydrogen bombs than bayonets and muskets. I mean, just try ignoring intersecting blast waves and thermal pulses! And chlorine gas? Pffft, piss on your socks and you can breathe through them but try that shit with VX!
Get it?
Comment · 8 years ago
The word used is “outraged” and not “surprised” though. I think that’s more than just a semantic point. In fact there is no mention of surprise in the article. I think that’s a reasonable reaction, whereas surprise is a straw man, largely implying a naïveté which is notably absent in the article.
Comment · 8 years ago
While those camps were morally reprehensible and constitutionally indefensible, the goal was not to kill people. Can we at least agree that the whole , “A secret court has ordered your death from the sky,” thing is a lot more purposefully murderous? Not capture, not detain, just kill.
Comment · 8 years ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/world/asia/drone-strikes-...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone...
Whatever you think of civilian deaths, don’t forget that we assasinated 6 US citizens without a trial. Freedoms my ass. What about the freedom of people attending a wedding or receiving medical treatment not to be killed? If this was another country doing the same to the US, would your non-argument hold water?
Comment · 8 years ago
Absolutely, but my point is that the cost is reasonable, the wages are not, and that implies a fix. Moreover, the fix doesn’t lie with Patagonia. Even more, if the true cost of things like clothing weren’t extermslized brutally, Americans would be far more aware of the pressing need for said fix.