pull down to refresh

I'm going to be confrontational about the counterargument, apologies if it's offensive, I don't want it to be but it could be.
our (relative) success with nuclear weapons.
That genie wasn't out of the box yet, 80 years and a few days ago, and it was straight used to wipe out 2 cities, by the authorities. So I do not agree that trusting governments with technology, especially not when reflecting on the history of nuclear weapons, to be a proven method for prevention of loss of human lives. It will just be another genocide if we entrust ever-more-opaque governments operating with increasing uncontrolled power, and being increasingly warmongering or straight out waging or sponsoring total war against civilian populations, to do the right thing.
They won't do the right thing. Maybe they will for you, if they're your government and you're of the right race, gender, wealth and circle of friends. But do we truly believe in the benevolence of the current ruling class? Personally, I haven't seen it.
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby OP 18h
Yeah, my heart wasn't in the counter argument. I can't help but agree with you. giving governments power over a thing pretty often results in that thing being misused to great harm. What would be the alternative history where nuclear materials are unregulated? (didn't find any part of what you said offensive).
reply
Mutually assured destruction.
reply