Quote:
Originally Posted by Daldolma
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
by uncontrollable, i don't mean random. i mean literally uncontrolled. we all know that our bombs and bombers are imperfect, but we have the technology to hit targets within a few yards. there is a degree of precision with conventional weaponry that isn't there with chemical weapons. by their very nature, chemical weapons are attacks on civilians
and i understand your point re: intention, but it does matter. if it didn't matter, there's no reason for restraint. in a moral vacuum, terrorists use chemical weapons and america carpet bombs the region. it's a lose-lose. the restraints of respect for civilian life hamper both the powerful and the weak, but i believe they are far more limiting for the powerful
|
So by "uncontrollable", you actually meant "wide area" or "imprecise". They're not the same thing. Try and use more precision with your words, else I might think you're trying to create the text equivalent of chemical weapons. Come to think of it, your posts do tend to make the eyes bleed...
I don't think intentions are completely irrelevant, but that they are given far too much consideration. Many people will simply accept any action as long as it has good intentions without fully understanding the consequences. To my mind, that is far more dangerous than willful acts of evil.