kubbelz

Wrong. 2b is compatible with 1. You can have peace without military supremacy, for a time at least. But you can guarantee peace with military supremacy. That's the difference.

You are at your enemy's mercy without it. They may conquer you on a whim, and there's not a thing you can do about it.

I would much prefer that military supremacy in the hands of the wise and moral, there's nothing idiotic or immoral about that (indeed, the opposite is idiotic and arguably immoral).

It's the thinking that prevents anyone from using all of those nuclear weapons against whoever they please.

You then have that option, yes. Usually it's not worth it - even the "winners" of a war suffer massive short-term loss of soldiers and resources, and create long-term enemies - but it's a nice option to have.

It's suicidally naive not to pursue military supremacy. Your enemies will.

What are you going to do when they appear on your shores to begin the slaughter, enslavement, rape, and pillaging? Write an angry letter? Start an online petition?

>Are there still adults stupid enough to think that watching porn will mess a kid up?

Is there anyone stupid enough to think that it won't?