[mLuby]

Sure, but it is defensible that a greater balance of power might be a net good for the world. (Also the devil is in defining net good). And it is also quite defensible to restrict hard power to ethical channels. There's a reason we don't use chemical weapons even though they would definitely give us an edge: The moral harm outweighs the tactical benefit. (Until it doesn't, as we saw in Syria.)

[tengbretson]

I don't want a balance of power. I want most moral actor (however flawed they may be) to have a technical and tactical advantage over those that would behave immorally.

The world didn't get together and unanimously decide to stop using chemical weapons. The few strongest forces in the world decided that no one was to use chemical weapons, and by that threat of force the world became a better place.

[drak0n1c]

Exactly, I don't see how setting up another cold war for the sake of proportionality will be good for the world. In the cold war nations still engaged in brutal proxy wars, and everyone lived in fear of a massive hot war. Doesn't seem preferable or more stable.

[jahaja]

Flawed? Is that it? Most moral according to US citizens is a pretty significant blind spot.

[adamsea]

Who watches the watcher?