Comment by ndiddy
1 hour ago
In a 2024 speech, Luckey said "Societies have always needed a warrior class that is enthused and excited about enacting violence on others in pursuit of good aims. You need people like me who are sick in that way and who don't lose any sleep making tools of violence in order to preserve freedom." ( https://techcrunch.com/2024/10/01/palmer-luckey-every-countr... ). He's said in a Bloomberg interview that "there are actually things I would like to build that the DoD would not use and would not deploy, that they do think are beyond the pale" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItLFpYha6Wc ), and he's said in an Axios interview that he would be willing to build nuclear weapons, as well as chemical weapons "in a specific vertical". He then elaborates by saying that it's a huge mistake that the US military isn't allowed to use tear gas in combat. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZfW3YTJ5Eg ) I'm having trouble believing that someone like this is inherently peaceful and should be getting multi-billion dollar contracts to manufacture drones that autonomously kill people. Maybe it's better to buy a Nintendo game from someone who doesn't think that the US is being held back by war crime treaties.
I've already seen all those quotes and interviews. You're mischaracterizing them.
He's probably not wrong that you have to be a certain kind of person that can stomach the inherent violence involved, that doesn't mean you want to kill innocent civilians. Yet you do have to be the kind of person who understands that civilian casualties can happen. Life is not kind to the mind that is fragile to the realities of nature. That's accurate.
As for nuclear weapons, he explicitly said he thinks they have done a lot to stabilize the world, which does put some limiters on how extreme war can be, because there is an extra red line that actually matters.
When it comes to chemical weapons, he already stated that no he wouldn't create biological or chemical weapons, but he thinks that there should be a special exception for non-lethal means like tear gas and pepper spray. It's like, a woman can take pepper spray out of her purse and use it against a criminal, but the US military can't use pepper spray to suppress enemies without killing them? Killing people is a more viable option than suppressing them? I think that's the argument he's making.
You should actually watch the stuff you link.