[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'd argue the opposite, that it would be unkind to preemptively destroy in anticipation for possible future destruction.

We're all better off for having not nuked the Soviets preemptively.

Causing death and destruction now is not the answer to possibly stemming death and destruction in the future, especially when the specifics of future loss are so poorly understood, and the specifics of current loss relatively well understood.

I consider even severe death and destruction in the future due to climate change to be more acceptable than even slightly less severe death and destruction now at the hand of socialist dictatorship. We know the evil of socialist dictatorship, and would do well to steer a wide berth around it.

How did that ever enter the conversation?