zlacker

The laws made more sense during the 1700s than now. No one really has any chance now. You discount the entire industrial and technological progress that happened in the past 200 years.

>>recoil+(OP)
I assume you're making the argument that a ragtag bunch of rebels wouldn't have a chance standing against an empire armed to the teeth with the latest war machines. If that is indeed the case, have you been paying attention to the news for the last decade?

>>notdru+s
There is a huge difference between some fourth-world dictatorships, and the US with its nukes, drones, intelligence, $700B/year budget.

>>opinal+E3
I think you have missed the point. The US DoD, with all of its nukes, drones, intelligence, and cash is having trouble with a "fourth-world dictatorship".

>>jlgrec+i4
This! nukes are not a serious weapon of war, their only use is deterrence because they completely rape any place where they're used so that that area is altogether off limits for the remaining life of humanity.

>>notdru+s
This is actually an argument for why an armed populace isn't necessary to defeat oppressive regimes; ultimately the rebels are armed by other interested nations (see: Syria, Libya, Afghanistan).

The US would still be under British rule if it weren't for the support of the French government during the American Revolution. It was not the muskets of American farmers which won that war (though they helped); it was a fleet of French ships, 6,000 French soldiers, a steady supply of French gunpowder and muskets, and approximately $13B (in today's dollars) of direct aid from the French--more if you count French defense spending.

>>yozmsn+X7
I get your point (weapon is too destructive). But it's not quite that bad. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki seem alright now.

>>jlgrec+i4
Exclusively due to the political costs of waging real war. Modern first-world countries have become too "soft" for war. (Which is a good thing of course.)

>>opinal+So
Yeah, I don't think we are going back to strategic/firestorm/nuclear bombing anytime in any foreseeable future.

>>lostlo+8m
> "But it's not quite that bad. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki seem alright now."

This is literally the most callous justification for nuking someone I have ever seen.

"It's not that bad guys. It's habitable now, 70 years later! If you didn't know better you would swear 80,000 didn't get instantly incinerated in nuclear fire, with over 125,000 more who died in slow agony over a few weeks of burns and radiation poisoning!"

I know Stalin said that a million deaths is just a statistic - but you weren't supposed to take Stalin to heart. Just sayin'.

>>potato+as
I don't think he is trying to justify anything...

>>potato+as
I wasn't at all, but I was unclear. I was pointing out that nuclear weapons don't cause places to be uninhabitable for eternity. It is quite clearly incorrect. This is not a reason to use them however. The atomic raids ands the firebombing of Japan are most definitely up there as war crimes.