←back to thread

The Department of War just shot the accountants and opted for speed

(steveblank.com)
285 points ridruejo | 1 comments | 11 Nov 25 14:34 UTC | HN request time: 0.244s | source
Show context
sd9 ◴[11 Nov 25 14:53 UTC] No.45887896[source]▶
More weapons more quickly. This is what I want.

I'm sure they will be used for good.

/s

I'm sure there are good reasons for this, and the approach doesn't seem totally unreasonable, to be fair. I'm just personally woefully unequipped to understand how to deploy weapons humanely and morally, and naively think less weapons is better. Thankfully there are adults in the room making these decisions for me...

replies(1): >>45888283 #
NickC25 ◴[11 Nov 25 15:21 UTC] No.45888283[source]▶
>deploy weapons humanely and morally

A bit of an oxymoron there wouldn't you say?

>naively think less weapons is better

This I agree with. We should really only have a few dozen nuclear weapons, and nothing more. The whole point is to have a clear line of "DO NOT FUCKING CROSS AT ALL", and that's it. You cross us? We nuke you. We don't bother you, you don't bother us unless you want to face nuclear annihilation. Seems to work for North Korea.

replies(3): >>45892892 #>>45893656 #>>45893759 #
1. chasd00 ◴[11 Nov 25 22:27 UTC] No.45893759[source]▶
The threat only works in an existential crisis. As in, if you legitimately attempt to destroy our government then we will nuke you. Using nuclear weapons successfully in a war that doesn't result in a full exchange between all super powers demonstrates the feasibility of limited nuclear war which is just nuclear armageddon in slow motion. Nations (and the earth) want to avoid that just as much as a full nuclear exchange.