The nature of warfare makes it necessary for you to come out with the next horrendous weapon before your enemy beats you to the punch.

True. So, just step out of the game. Simple as that. No more violence-games.

And how would that accomplish anything?

I don't know.
What has been accomplished by all the warfare and violence?
What should be accomplished? Gandhi accomplished indepence for India through total non-violent civil disobedience.

Retribution: might just be like that. But I'd like to think a more peaceful way of "progress" possible. It would maybe seem a bit awkward to talk about the evolutional necessity of war to a man who has just lost his family, house, and limbs in a bombing.

Do you suppose non-violence would have stopped the Nazis? Where would we be now if not for the military might of the US and USSR and the UK? What might have happened if the US had never developed the atomic bomb, and allowed Russia to develop it first? Peace is only a workable concept if ALL nations adhere to it. As soon as one nation becomes aggressive and seeks to forcibly dominate another, warfare becomes necessary. Sometimes a country truly does have to defend its freedom...but other times, that is simply an excuse to attack a country that is "potentially" aggressive, like Iraq or Iran, for instance.

Obviously not all nations learn from the horrors of last wars. Look at the slaughter of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans during the 90s. Or the genocide in Rwanda and Darfur. How can one nation truly hope for peace when otehr parts of the world engage in such atrocities?

Reharding the DNA database, many people want it because it would allow the authorities to identify human remains of murder victoms, for instance. Many people will never know what happened to a missing loved one because there is no way of positively identifying the potential corpse.

As far as other invasions of privacy, such as security cameras and whatnot, our governments are in a tough spot. We expect them to protect us from the threat of terrorism in every possible form, while at the same time respecting our privacy. We don't want the government to track our every move, but we expect them to track every move of a potential terrorist. What price are you willing to pay in civil liberties for the sake of national security?

Reharding the DNA database, many people want it because it would allow the authorities to identify human remains of murder victoms, for instance. Many people will never know what happened to a missing loved one because there is no way of positively identifying the potential corpse.

As far as other invasions of privacy, such as security cameras and whatnot, our governments are in a tough spot. We expect them to protect us from the threat of terrorism in every possible form, while at the same time respecting our privacy. We don't want the government to track our every move, but we expect them to track every move of a potential terrorist. What price are you willing to pay in civil liberties for the sake of national security?

Terrorism. God how I hate that word. There is absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever to be afraid of terrorists. No reason at all. The odds to be killed in a terrorist attack are...hmmm...pretty fucking low. You are more likely going to win twice in a row in lottery.

AND if people continue handing out their liberties this way and the tracking devices become reality, I guarantee you, terrorism will really become part of our daily lives.

Do you suppose non-violence would have stopped the Nazis? Where would we be now if not for the military might of the US and USSR and the UK? What might have happened if the US had never developed the atomic bomb, and allowed Russia to develop it first?

Perhaps the Nazis hadn't grown so powerful in the first place if the people had had restraint not to seek improvement to their conditions by such violent means... I can understand how poverty and desperation create violent behaviour, but it's hard to see why comparatively rich, well-to-do people eagerly support war machines - if not out of fear maybe.
I sincerely can't imagine how the US first developing the A-bomb instead of Russians has led us anywhere, better or worse.

They should name this thing Trogdor the Burninator

Do you suppose non-violence would have stopped the Nazis? Where would we be now if not for the military might of the US and USSR and the UK? What might have happened if the US had never developed the atomic bomb, and allowed Russia to develop it first?

Perhaps the Nazis hadn't grown so powerful in the first place if the people had had restraint not to seek improvement to their conditions by such violent means... I can understand how poverty and desperation create violent behaviour, but it's hard to see why comparatively rich, well-to-do people eagerly support war machines - if not out of fear maybe.
I sincerely can't imagine how the US first developing the A-bomb instead of Russians has led us anywhere, better or worse.

The only thing that would have stopped the Nazis in the first place would be for the Allied nations to attack Germany first, when it became apparent that they were re-militarizing themselves and building up their army, in spite of, or perhaps because of, the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles. But in fear of starting another war, the Allies sat back and watched them build their army, and then by the time Germany invaded Poland it was too late to prevent another war anyway.

I guess I should have said, "If the US had allowed Germany to build the A-bomb first." You should be able to imagine what would have happened if they beat us to that design.