While I think it would be a very good thing to ban globally I also know it is almost impossible to ban things globally. And even those these weapons are dangerous and can possibly be viewed as …Read MoreWhile I think it would be a very good thing to ban globally I also know it is almost impossible to ban things globally. And even those these weapons are dangerous and can possibly be viewed as unethical, they could be beneficial to have for safety reasons. The same way nuclear weapons work, no one wants to use them but if you don’t have them your country is not protected.Read Less
My click to “yes” is definitely wishful thinking. The reality is, the genie is out of the bottle…it can never be reversed. Unfortunately, nations can never fully trust one another, even if they …Read MoreMy click to “yes” is definitely wishful thinking. The reality is, the genie is out of the bottle…it can never be reversed. Unfortunately, nations can never fully trust one another, even if they are liberal democracies. You can never truly rely on another nation’s word. No matter what, you still install a safety net for yourself, your family, and your country.
Rogue states seek the same security we do, and why shouldn’t they? From the Western perspective, we often view nations like Iran as emotionally reactive and potentially irrational when it comes to the power and responsibility of possessing such volatile weapons. These weapons wouldn’t just destroy their enemies; they would lead to global genocide and even self-destruction. Iran, in particular, is a sensitive case. Possessing weapons of mass destruction requires a rational mindset. I’m not trying to generalize or be ignorant about Iran’s leadership. I don’t assume they are unworthy of such responsibility. But when a nation’s dominant ideology is rooted in religious fundamentalism that glorifies martyrdom and death, similar to early Christian beliefs that devalued life on Earth in favor of the Kingdom of Heaven, it becomes deeply concerning. Christianity eventually evolved beyond that mindset after the long-awaited “second coming” never arrived. The same ideological evolution is necessary elsewhere.
What I’m trying to say is that a nation’s ideology must progress to become a responsible actor on the global stage. Iran often acts in defiance, and that defiance comes at a cost to its standing in the world. Every nation has the right to protect itself, but when it comes to weapons that can cause mass extinction, rational nations have the right to prevent questionable regimes from gaining access to them.
As Spider-Man says, “Great power comes with great responsibility”, and not all nations are there yet. Read Less
There are also many interesting ethical arguments embedded in this discussion about respecting the dignity of individuals (even during the moral gray area of wartime). I find that these autonomous …Read MoreThere are also many interesting ethical arguments embedded in this discussion about respecting the dignity of individuals (even during the moral gray area of wartime). I find that these autonomous weapons may lead to similar effects to mutually assured destruction, but not before having devastating effects on both a consequential and deontological level.Read Less
Developing new and more interesting ways to deal damage has been one of the less attractive capabilities of humanity for some time. I don’t think a global ban would prove effective in actually …Read MoreDeveloping new and more interesting ways to deal damage has been one of the less attractive capabilities of humanity for some time. I don’t think a global ban would prove effective in actually preventing further development of these kinds of weapons given the understandable lack of trust between nations, even though I also think we don’t need these kinds of weapons.Read Less
While I think it would be a very good thing to ban globally I also know it is almost impossible to ban things globally. And even those these weapons are dangerous and can possibly be viewed as …Read MoreWhile I think it would be a very good thing to ban globally I also know it is almost impossible to ban things globally. And even those these weapons are dangerous and can possibly be viewed as unethical, they could be beneficial to have for safety reasons. The same way nuclear weapons work, no one wants to use them but if you don’t have them your country is not protected. Read Less
In an ideal world yes, but unfortunately this is not an ideal world.
My click to “yes” is definitely wishful thinking. The reality is, the genie is out of the bottle…it can never be reversed. Unfortunately, nations can never fully trust one another, even if they …Read MoreMy click to “yes” is definitely wishful thinking. The reality is, the genie is out of the bottle…it can never be reversed. Unfortunately, nations can never fully trust one another, even if they are liberal democracies. You can never truly rely on another nation’s word. No matter what, you still install a safety net for yourself, your family, and your country.
Rogue states seek the same security we do, and why shouldn’t they? From the Western perspective, we often view nations like Iran as emotionally reactive and potentially irrational when it comes to the power and responsibility of possessing such volatile weapons. These weapons wouldn’t just destroy their enemies; they would lead to global genocide and even self-destruction.
Iran, in particular, is a sensitive case. Possessing weapons of mass destruction requires a rational mindset. I’m not trying to generalize or be ignorant about Iran’s leadership. I don’t assume they are unworthy of such responsibility. But when a nation’s dominant ideology is rooted in religious fundamentalism that glorifies martyrdom and death, similar to early Christian beliefs that devalued life on Earth in favor of the Kingdom of Heaven, it becomes deeply concerning. Christianity eventually evolved beyond that mindset after the long-awaited “second coming” never arrived. The same ideological evolution is necessary elsewhere.
What I’m trying to say is that a nation’s ideology must progress to become a responsible actor on the global stage. Iran often acts in defiance, and that defiance comes at a cost to its standing in the world. Every nation has the right to protect itself, but when it comes to weapons that can cause mass extinction, rational nations have the right to prevent questionable regimes from gaining access to them.
As Spider-Man says, “Great power comes with great responsibility”, and not all nations are there yet. Read Less
There are also many interesting ethical arguments embedded in this discussion about respecting the dignity of individuals (even during the moral gray area of wartime). I find that these autonomous …Read MoreThere are also many interesting ethical arguments embedded in this discussion about respecting the dignity of individuals (even during the moral gray area of wartime). I find that these autonomous weapons may lead to similar effects to mutually assured destruction, but not before having devastating effects on both a consequential and deontological level. Read Less
Developing new and more interesting ways to deal damage has been one of the less attractive capabilities of humanity for some time. I don’t think a global ban would prove effective in actually …Read MoreDeveloping new and more interesting ways to deal damage has been one of the less attractive capabilities of humanity for some time. I don’t think a global ban would prove effective in actually preventing further development of these kinds of weapons given the understandable lack of trust between nations, even though I also think we don’t need these kinds of weapons. Read Less