[spraak]

> I'm staunchly opposed to war, but understand it's unfortunate necessity under certain extreme circumstances.

> If these types of projects make war machines more precise overall, they may actually decrease overall collateral damage and reduce the total time war is waged which could cause less lives to be lost during war.

"I'm staunchly opposed to beating my children, but understand it's unfortunate necessity under certain extreme circumstances.

If these types of projects make child beatings more precise overall, they may actually decrease overall harm to children...."

[asdfologist]

So killing ISIS members is morally equivalent to beating children?

[spraak]

I just mean that if you're opposed to something then there aren't any times it's also a necessity. You may do it, but ultimately you view it as unnecessary. War happens, but it's unnecessary every time, even when one side initiates, it doesn't make it necessary.

[pluto9]

It's necessary for you when the other side has decided to engage in it against you. The fact that it was technically "unnecessary" for them to start the war in the first place is rather irrelevant when they're marching down your street. The decision about whether there's going to be a war, necessary or not, has been made for you.

If you don't believe me, I'm sure there's a Kurd somewhere who would be amused to hear your theories about why their fight against ISIS is "unnecessary".

[spraak]

You're still missing my view point. It's always unnecessary, whether you engage or not.

[pluto9]

I understand your point perfectly. My point is that that's only true by the most literal, pedantic, and irrelevant definition of "unnecessary".