[QUOTE=Skoshi Tiger;176252]
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyJWest
What exactly is 'cool' about a weapon who's only feasible use is against large civilian populations?
QUOTE]
Probably the exact same thing that makes it "cool" to fly a simulation of aircaft thats only purpose was to carry machine guns, cannons, bombs and rockects that's only purpose were to kill people.
As an aside there were numerous engineering schemes investigated to use nuclear devices for the good of man kind. Such as using them to create a chanel from the Great Australian Bight to Lake Eyre forming a inland sea and turning the arid central regions of Australia into a lush green paradise! Luckily sanity prevailed!
Cheers
|
Yes, this.
Please, let's not get into a debate about whether or not the US should have dropped the bombs on Japan. Those bombs saved Allied soldier's lives in an all out war and also saved large numbers of Japanese lives No one had "smart weapons" back then and bombing a city was about the only way to knock out the manufacturing capacity based in those cities.
Nukes probably saved the Soviets and Americans from direct confrontation during the Cold War. Nuclear power is also probably the most efficient source of power we have currently. It's not about the technology, it's about how it is used ultimately.
If it was inherently wrong to simulate killing on computers, there really wouldn't be many games to play. Good or bad, that's a fact. I might have killed hundreds of thousands of simulated people in my life but never once have I had to kill a real life person
.
Splitter