Comment by orangedog
2 hours ago
Starting a weapon company is different from owning a gun. You have control over that gun. Your weapons company, those weapons will be used to kill innocent people, there is no doubt. Weapons don't only get used for clean operations in war and there is almost always collateral damage.
It is a decision to start producing regardless of how well-intentioned it is. You will be profiting off of people being maimed and killed. Various people thought they solved war through new weapons only to create more effective killing machines. That's what WW1 was.
Palmer does not have to work on weapons nor justify making them. Building tech that will be used to murder people (and yes, it will happen) is a decision. Not funding his other hobby when he's getting money off US military contracts is hardly breaking his bank. He wants to build weapons? I don't want to buy his products. Easy.
Building more efficient weapons does not make us safer. Every dollar saved through "strength" and better weapons matters little to the parents who lost their kid when the most precise weapon in the world kills a bunch of schoolchildren like it did at the start of the Iran war. If you can't gaurantee your weapons won't get used for that, why would you build them? You cannot.
I thought Tony Stark already made this point.
The problem is that China, Russia, Iran and so on have all been accelerating their weapons manufacturing. Go complain to them.
If nobody in the world was manufacturing any weapons and it was fully observable from space, nobody would have cause to manufacture these kinds of weapons. We do not live in that world.
At some point, any reasonable person should agree that if a country exists in an environment that contains many threats it might need to defend itself or others from, then it makes complete sense for it to develop weapons towards that aim. Countries are not people, people are people. So people make the weapons.
It just so happens that Palmer Luckey is a person. He can't sell weapons to any random person or country he wants, he can only sell them to the US or with permission of the US to a country that the US has a strategic interest in defending.
Precision weapons have helped reduce casualties. This is a fact. Please try to contradict this fact in the face of napalm bombing and nuclear bombs of yesteryears. Please try to tell me that precision weapons aren't better than just randomly aiming artillery at the sky and letting'er rip. Please do. I want to hear your well founded argument for this.
Hey, if your argument is that somebody has to build weapons, then that's your argument. I don't believe that's the situation and building weapons only encourages other countries to do the same. Notice virtually all of Russia's justifications are about US aggression, rightly or wrongly.
Is it more efficient than napalm? Great. It still will be used to kill people which I find to be gross, especially when innocents will die, too. If somebody has to build weapons and somebody has to fund said weapons maker, I'm glad it doesn't have to be me. Doesn't have to be Palmer either.
If killing people is gross (which I agree with), then we should kill the people that kill the people, right? Or should people that kill people run rampant, because nobody should ever kill them?
If they should be killed, then they should be killed with the minimum number of civilian casualties possible.
Countless millions of people died in World War 1 and World War 2. So many people died that we only have estimates, because there were too many to count individually.
If nobody pushed back against Japan, Germany, Russia, North Korea, China, Iraq, Iran and so on, the world would not be a better place. It would be a place where full on global war was legitimized as a viable global domination strategy. And global domination was in fact the goal back then. The problem is, we aren't sure that goal has ever gone away.
As a result, the entire world is a chess board with smaller countries being manipulated or compromised in various ways for some other grand strategy. For many years now we've accepted that there would largely be some sort of equilibrium or status quo. Except these smaller countries also have a mind of their own and their people universally reject being controlled and manipulated.
Russia with Ukraine. China with Taiwan. North Korea with South Korea. Venezuela with Guyana. Iran with Israel, Iraq, Yemen, etc. Now suddenly all of these countries are all the prowl almost simultaneously. If you only look at US action, look at the world we're reacting to. It's not as simple as some political propagandist hitjob soundbite on TV being the complete answer.