The Watchmen Dilemma

While I agree we both have moral absolutes, it differs immensely, in that by not initiating violence violence to occur, and the violence ends negatively. What is the point of not initiating violence but to not initiate hurt, so what is the point of not initiating violence if by doing so you get people hurt. It's counter-productive.

So you're idea is inherently selfish, in that you believe that by not initiating violence you have not stained your moral name, even if others had died and there's no one to notice it. Personally, I think that itself is a stain on your moral name.

I believe that your sense of morality is flawed, because in your current one you would perform an immoral action in order to serve your sense of morality. Note the key word, sense.

...And I do. Both are opinions, and we have reached an impasse. Your concept of 'let someone else do the dirty work' is selfish and arrogant, and I pray you will never be given such a choice, as you would doom all of humanity so you would not have to bear the guilt.

I'm it's a very faulty anology, just because your weapon are much more powerful, doesn't mean that others are less powerful en masse. It's only if you can counter other's weapons of mass destruction that it becomes a clear advantage.

Your anology would describe a knife v an automatic rifle, that doesn't mean that soldiers doesn't have a knife for combat and survival, it's just a matter of outsmarting a man with a rifle, when all you have is a knife.