posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 06:17 AM
Reading through this thread, and others like it, I've come to a conclusion that's going to get me flamed from all sides. Give me a minute to get
into my fireproof suit? Thank you.
Both groups of extremists in threads like this make me ill.
The people who can look at weapons and just see the 'cool' parts should try talking to soldiers who have been on the receiving end of some of that
'cool' hardware. War isn't 'cool', and war isn't a spectator sport (or at least it shouldn't be). It's a brutal, nasty, uncivilized pastime
that tends to bring out some of the best in humanity (courage, honor, and devotion to duty) right alongside some of the worst (cruelty, fanaticism,
and hatred). General Sherman was all too correct when he said that war is hell, and it seems that nobody on Earth wants peace more than the veterans
That said, anyone who thinks that it's immoral to fight, and always wrong to wage war, and thinks that all we have to do is give peace a chance is
suffering a disconnect from reality. Conflict is part of what we are...back in the days of Adam and Eve, there were four people on Earth, and one of
them killed his brother. What does that say about us? We can pray for peace, we can chant and channel positive energy, and we can protest until the
heat death of the universe, and there will still be wars. Even getting rid of humanity won't change that...every species on Earth competes with its
neighbors and rivals.
So...war is terrible, but we're stuck with it. Given those two seemingly conflicting truths, what's the best course of action? The ancient Romans
(as usual) had the best idea. Si vis pacem, para bellum. The very best way to guarantee peace is to make certain that any potential enemies know
beyond any rational doubt that an attempt to harm you (in the personal or the national sense) will result in immediate and apocalyptic retaliation.
Think about it...how many times has Chuck Norris been mugged? *cricket*cricket*cricket*.
That same idea drives the continued development of weapons. It's a bit of an irony that the weapons are only dangerous under two conditions: 1) A
potential opponent is irrational, in which case, nothing would prevent harm to all parties involved in any case, and 2) A potential opponent doesn't
believe that you have the willpower to actually use the weapons you have available.