You don't use WMDs to strike a handful of people & if you did you'd just create a whole lot more new enemies.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

WMDs are used against .govs.

Have you never read about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

That was an attack on an enemy .gov by attacking their tax cattle...

En mass, not a handful.

Lol. There were still plenty of civilians.

That's what the civilians are, tax cattle the source for the .gov parasites, they can't exist without them. 🤣

I know what you meant, mate. 🙄

I know you didn't mean actual livestock.

It is an attack on an enemy .govs "supply chain" "resources" etc. 😂

It's not attacking your own peasants & getting yourself offed for it...

They have to eat, they have to sleep, they have to shit, they have to travel at some point, not everyone is as worthless as that 20 year old or as limited in thought. 🤣

How do you think the central banks & military industrial complex cowed the puppets that didn't respond to bribes... 😂

Okay. Well, you enjoy yourself, mate. I feel like you took some things out of context or perhaps missed the point i was trying to make. Perhaps, you missed my previous comment? Idk. 🤷‍♂️

Meh, it's all irrelevant because the system will collapse before anyone gets antsy enough anyway. 🤣

Moderns are a whole lot more docile than ancient people, or even those 200 years ago. 😜

I was just pointing out that they couldn't win if most humans still acted like humans... which they don't...

And what is done to another country isn't relevant.

The "local lords" still have to keep the peasants happy enough or distracted enough not to get the idea of going for their throat.

Which is pretty easy now unless you start bombing them, then they might get ideas. 😂

On that we can agree.

And you need to get that image of armies marching in to take over out of your head, that isn't the way to do it.

I know it's not the way. I don't like it either. Doesn't mean it won't happen. And it IS out of our control.

I have a busy day, mate. Gonna type this up quick and we'll chat later if you wish.

When did I say strike? And I figured we were referring to larger populations. Hence my reference regarding government influence never ceasing to spread. The more it spreads the larger both governing and civilian bodies become.

I meant WMDs strictly as a means to threaten. I'm aware you'd make more enemies but trust me, nuclear powers have threatened foreign nations with nuclear force far more often than anyone believes. And it's worked. Obviously they won't advertise such a thing across the bloody media outlets. Also, I meant having WMDs, in general, should be prohibited if they wish to be in a position of power. That's what I meant by leverage. They can threaten anyone. Doesn't mean it will be their own people. Probably won't be. But, they might threaten others. And we don't want that either.