Direct or Indirect Guilt?

Yesterday, an old friend asked me a question which went along these lines. Why do you want to create something that will only end up killing people? At that time, I didn't answer her question because I really didn't know how to answer it. My only sensible answer was that I create to prevent. The argument is based on the idea that if I could create something powerful enough, I'd never have to use it because no one in their sane mind would want to try and attack someone who is more powerful then themselves simply because they wouldn't want to risk annihilation themselves. Which means that no lives will be lost at the hands of these weapons.

But then again, how credible is this idea?

Personally, I don't think that this is a very credible idea because while I agree that there have been events in the past where prevention really did stop nations from going to war, for example the cold war in which both sides were reluctant to fire at each other because of the nuclear bombs, other events have also suggested that prevention doesn't always work out. And in fact, some have actually managed to defeat nations with more powerful weapons.

For example, if we were to take a peek into history, we would come to a conclusion there have been groups or even nations that have risked possible annihilation by either resisting more powerful armies or even trying to provoke a fight between themselves and a nation with much greater firepower then them. Take for example the terrorists. In pursuing what they are doing, terrorists and nations that harbor terrorists often run the risk of being completely annihilated by the nuclear arms and other high tech weaponry of its more powerful adversaries. And as we have seen, many of these weapons which are supposed to act as deterrents have failed to do its job and have been used in combat and subsequently taken the lives of many terrorists and innocent civilians alike.

So, having said that, we can now realize that having a bigger gun doesn't necessarily mean that it will prevent conflicts between a small power and a bigger power. Which means that more people will end up getting killed by this weapon anyways.

This of course brings me back to my friend's question, why create something which will only end up killing people?

I obviously can't use the deterrent argument. So, how do I answer this question? Honestly, I still don't know. I do admit that I find pleasure in blowing things up and pushing the frontiers of technology. But what is for sure is that I don't find pleasure in knowing that people out there are going to suffer and lose their loved ones because of something I created.

So I now have to ask myself, why delve into something that would eventually kill people?

Can I rid myself of the guilt by arguing that people kill people, not guns or that a weapon is morally neutral until it is applied? It sounds tempting. But then again, if that weapon is eventually used, blood would be on my hands. Just like how it was on the hands of all those who were involved in the Manhattan Project over 60 years ago eventhough it wasn't them who pushed the button.

Sigh...

But on a more lighter note, it was great meeting an old friend again and all the better to have "Baka" around..