Hydra's idealogy in Captain America Winter Soldier

I am going to do the same format as my last argument. 1. Pro: "Racism- During the firefight with Shield, I didn't see a Hydra agent shooting a black man before a white man. Also, the Insight helicarriers targeting was automated and computerized, meaning it wasn't going to fall prey to bias." - It was true that HYDRA wasn't visibly racist, however as I stated before, racism can be "the bias in judgment and/or behavior that results from subtle cognitive processes (e.g., implicit attitudes and implicit stereotypes) that often operate at a level below conscious awareness and without intentional control" (source in last round). So racism often manifests in our subconscious, where it is hard to identify and harder to control. -Yes the targeting system was "automated and computerized," but somebody still has to give the "okay" to pull the trigger - and how do we know that the HYDRA agent in charge would pull the trigger with complete and total objectivity? 2. Pro: "Defense- Hydra was an undercover organization and hadn't expected their cover to be blown so soon. Hydra planned to launch the Insight carriers into space, and when the time is right activate its weapons. But the time wasn't right, and their forces were weak. Lastly, it was a Captain America movie, and in the MCU universe they never let the villain win, even despite overwhelming odds." -An undercover organization's #1 concern should be ensuring their cover isn't blown. -Yes, HYDRA wasn't ready to launch, but that was only due to their own negligence and lack of skill. They were clearly not properly prepared for an attack on the helicarriers, and they were clearly not equipped to take down SHIELD, Black Widow, Falcon, and Captain America. -"...their forces were weak." Exactly! Their forces did not have the ability to fend off any serious attack and should not be in control of the fate of the global population. -If you break our 'fourth wall' and argue that HYDRA only lost because they were villains, I'll do the same and argue that HYDRA had evil intentions because they were the villain. 3. Pro: "Once the Insight helicarriers would be in space, their weapons could be fully deployed. They wouldn't be vulnerable to close range attacks. The helicarrier was designed by SHIELD anyways, blame them, and so was the weak encryption. Suppose if Insight helicarriers had been deployed in other movies of Marvel. The villain would be easily took down before even the fight began. No, I think the directors realized this bug wouldn't let them continue future movies, and therefore they took it down. And of course, the oh-so righteous Captain America." -What about far range attacks? Or attacks from Asgardians, a fleet of Iron Man's armor, the Hulk, etc? -HYDRA should have improved SHIELD's technology. To not upgrade obvious weaknesses in the targeting system was negligence. -Actually the helicarrier would be ineffective in taking down Loki and Ultron - the villains who could and did wreak the most havoc on the Earth. And if we're truly talking about potential threats, we need to consider the Hulk and Thor - the targeting system would do nothing but enrage them. -The directors had the helicarriers destroyed because Captain America and those who worked alongside him were able to overpower HYDRA. Yes, the movie was "written that way": this is exactly why we're dealing in HYPOTHETICALS. If we invoke 'real life,' as I said before, I can just argue HYDRA was evil because HYDRA was the villains. 4. Pro: "Lastly, coming back to the resolution, I think Hydra's ideology is correct as the sacrifice of a few would ensure a better tomorrow. There could have been other means such as an engineered plague, simple weapons assault, turret development, but whatever it may be, it will result in a world that will be safe. " -I think HYDRA's ideology was idiotic because they didn't have the skills, tactics, critical thinking, and objectivity necessary to launch, safeguard, and control a program that could kill you with just a flip of a switch. 5. Pro: "I would like to quote Alexander Pierce here "It's a matter of time a dirty bomb goes off in Moscow, or an EMP fries Chicago. Suppose if your daughter were being dragged to an execution stadium by Pakistani militants, and you could stop it with a flick of a switch, wouldn't you? Wouldn't you all??"" -Yes, the majority of people would flick the switch - and that's exactly why the option shouldn't be available. Say there's a misunderstanding and instead of killing a potential criminal, you kill members of a military, a police force, a government, a royal family, on their own soil - you would have committed a war crime. HYDRA's ideology was flawed not because eliminating potential criminals would have made the world a better place, but because eliminating potential criminals makes you, in essence, a potential criminal. Anybody who has the power to kill everybody on this Earth with HYDRA's program is a potential criminal - and, by HYDRA's logic, should be killed. Therefore, HYDRA's insanely hypocritical targeting system program should be abandoned for a solution that won't enable prejudice, that won't have any potential to fall into unsavory hands, and that won't allow people to commit war crimes.