Quote:I can't say I understand your opposition to these weapons,
There's a historical point where the arms trade went bigtime. Steel companies became huge and powerful corporate entitites with the railway builiding boom. The rails spread across europe, north america and elsewhere plus all the cars to move on those rails pushed the demand for steel by some factor you can probably imagine. But with the rails down and the cars built, that market reached saturation.
And whaddaya think those big steel corporations began marketing in order to create new demand? Cannon is the right answer. How marketed? Go to country X and tell them that country Y is about to buy cannon and so they sure as hell better get some too. Manufacture threat to create product demand. Justify your product and its marketing with the seductive "Well, if we don't do, someone else will."
Eisenhower, your ex-republican president, general, and former head of the allied forces in WW 2 gave you guys a warning when he left office. He understood that American militarization was a function NOT of threat but rather of the marketing of threat.
Does Phillips Tobacco wish that smoking by teens cease, even knowing how many it will kill? Does Northrup wish for peace?
My opposition is to the structural relationship between your government, its economy, and war. There's a reason why war is glorified in America in a manner which it presently is not in the rest of the western world.