Hacker News Reader

Ah yes, because recent world events have made it so clear that being unarmed is an excellent and guaranteed strategy towards peace.

"There's a difference between being peaceful and harmless".

View on HN

Okay, but I'm not advocating that. My point is that they're being weasels. They're setting the stage so that they can work on things that anyone with a moderately flexible would view would qualify as "weapons", while hiding behind "it's not technically a gun or a missile".

I'm with you. I think weapons are important. I don't like double-speak, though.

Who has been unarmed exactly? In recent events I mean. Also, you are proving their point. The side who is killing the most civilians right now, in the past few months, is not at all considered to be evil by the USA.

> Who has been unarmed exactly?

The most obvious example would be Ukraine having given up their nuclear weapons following the fall of the USSR. It hasn't exactly worked out well for them.

edit: formatting

Reply on news.ycombinator.com