[trelltron]

I think this is the key difference. Conventional wars, regardless of the weapons, are awful, but they take time, and resources, and constant decision making. Things can change, one side withdraws or surrenders and the killing stops.

A weaponised virus doesn't have these constraints, and could destroy humanity, but at least it takes some time, and can probably be somewhat mitigated.

In nuclear war, a split second decision could annihilate every living human, erase all evidence of our existence, and maybe cause a big enough climate shift to permanently end life on this planet.

[marcosdumay]

> In nuclear war, a split second decision could annihilate every living human, erase all evidence of our existence, and maybe cause a big enough climate shift to permanently end life on this planet.

Not to take too much from the argument, but that line is way overblown. I think it's hard to believe a nuclear war would kill all humans (it would certainly destroy civilization, but killing everybody is way harder) but nobody can be sure of that. Anyway, the Earth has survived meteor strikes larger than humanity's entire arsenal and life is still here.

[M_Grey]

You've taken nothing at all from the argument. If human civilization fails, then it's just a matter of time before the species does as well. More importantly, what value would there be in a handful of devastated humans scratching out a "bang the rocks together" life until the next extinction event finished the job?