"Yes. But the weak person isn't meant to survive. The STRONG one is, so his/her healthy genes can be passed on. The gun messes this up"
If the human race was only made of strong people, we would still be in the stone ages.
GPS, the microwave, computers, freeze drying, epipens, duct tape, nuclear power, semiconductors, the telegraph, penicillin and other antibiotics, radar, the jet engine, nylon and other synthetic materials, canned food, the INTERNET, digital cameras, ambulances, modern razors, tampons, nearly all forms of electronics, space shuttles, and so much more would not exist without military funding.
Math—I'm surprised I need to explain this. Every item you own is composed of something else. For example, most smartphones contain elements such as copper, nickel, zinc, lithium, cadmium and cobalt. These elements are found in nature.
"'Im surprised I need to explain this. Every item you own is composed of something else. For example, most smartphones contain elements such as copper, nickel, zinc, lithium, cadmium and cobalt. These elements are found in nature."
Easy counter, do you know how much metal is in an asteroid? Future tech, problem solved.
@Itani At the beginning of WW2 big bombs were only about 10 tone block busters.A few years in we had an atomic bomb that released an energy output of 15,000 tones of TNT (that was 1945). 7 years later (1952) we tried something new, a hydrogen bomb, that released energy of 10 million tones of TNT (created a fireball 3 miles wide). (1961) we created one with 57 million tones of TNT equivalent. It's called the Tsar Bomba (Russian) . Do you find it interesting how close together these time frames are? You wouldn't be saying what you've said if the Tsar Bomba dropped in the US.
The purpose of weapons is to kill people. Better weapons = more people end up dead. Physically weaker people have always been able to organize and use their intellect to get strong people to defend them.
"Russia has something more powerful now with modern technology. When i replied to Itani i wasn't talking about the present."
If you are talking about russia's strongest non-nuclear bomb, I already know about it. I personally rather be attacked by a nuclear weapons than a thermobaric weapon.
"Big nukes aren't scary." you wouldn't be saying that once you're dead. You seem like a typical trigger happy american."
I wouldn't be saying anything if I was dead. And if I was in a situation where I knew I was going to die from a nuke, I would be equally scared to if I knew I was going to die to a conventional bomb. Big nukes aren't scary, cluster ballistic missiles that carry multiple nukes are far more scary, and they are also far more likely to be used. Which would you be scared or more, seeing one really big boom, or see multiple nukes going off destroying much more? Besides nuclear weapon aren't nearly as scary as somethings.
@minny: I have to agree with Joe. Remember, advancements in production capacity are dependent on technology. Technology is what allows us to support larger and larger populations. Taking food production as an example, Joe mentioned vertical farming and algae bioreactors. You can see my opinion here: http://www.debate.org/opinions/vertical-farming-is-it-farming-for-the-future I've explained vertical farming on the left column; Joe explained algae bioreactors on the right. In the future we may be serving 50,000 people with a single tower. In other words, we could feed a town with just a few of these buildings. You cite the ecological deficit, but even the carrying capacity of land can be expanded with technology. Precision agriculture, for example, is a great solution to overcome climatic constraints on farming while preventing salinsation and eutrophication at the same time; in fact, drip irrigation, an example of precision agriculture, is one of the reasons behind Israel's economic prosperity.
@Mathgeekjoe You would rather be attacked by a nuclear weapon than a thermobaric weapon? I think that was a typo in more than one way. But no, i wasn't talking about the ATBIP. I was talking about something like the star wars program. Russia could be working on something very similar. " I wouldn't be saying anything if I was dead." yeah, that's the point. To answer your question; i would only see chaos.
Yes, I would rather be attacked by a nuclear weapon instead of a thermobaric weapon.
"I was talking about something like the star wars program. Russia could be working on something very similar."
The star wars program is very vague description. Do you mean the lasers or the kinetic bombardment or something else?
@Mathgeekjoe Okay well, I wouldn't want to be attacked by any. When i talk about the star wars program i talking about the stuff that is off the books. You know? Unacknowledged special access projects.