We are in someone else's yard. One that mysteriously seems to feature players who interact solely through disembodied text, has a numbered scoring system and also at least one non-player character who fiercely guards a list of rules, and can alter everything.
Is obviously some kind of retro cyberpunk-themed text-based multiplayer D&D clone. So, personally, I try not to directly piss off dang, who appears to currently be the dungeonmaster here, just in case I then get eaten by a grue.
Our idea here is to try to enhance the human element in online interactions, or at least to prevent it from destroying itself. If that isn't clear from the site guidelines, I'm not sure what would persuade you? All of them are meant sincerely.
If everyone refused to build guidance systems for missiles, perhaps the missiles would never get built?
I think likely yes, because if the zeitgeist among engineers was strong enough to make it nearly impossible to find one willing to build a missile guidance system, it would also be strong enough to make it impossible to find someone willing to build the actual missile.
To directly answer your question: no, I believe no weapon of war is OK. The reasons are all of the typical pacifist ones but I don't think it's necessary to reiterate verbatim here unless you feel otherwise.
> If everyone refused to build guidance systems for missiles, perhaps the missiles would never get built?
Correct but incomplete.
In that scenario, unguided rockets get built instead of missiles. Rockets, being unguided, will miss their targets more often than missiles. Rockets, being unguided, will also tend to be used in slightly-scattered volleys, so as to increase the chance that at least one rocket hits the target.
Any explosive ordnance that misses its target has some chance of instead killing some civilians.
Pfft, why should I feel guilty about openly advocating everyone use LSD anymore than advocating everyone learn how to drive knowing automobile accidents kills some huge number of people?
